Mark Paul Mac Donald

In a defamation action concerning an article criticizing the plaintiffs' prenatal paternity test, the defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence after the close of evidence at trial.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment introduced new allegations regarding the validity of the underlying science, which would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court reviewed the existing pleadings and expert reports, concluding that the validity of the science was already a live issue and the amendment merely clarified existing allegations.

The court granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The applicant sought damages for breach of contract, tracing orders, constructive trust, equitable lien, and piercing the corporate veil against the corporate and individual respondents.

The court dismissed the application, finding that service was not properly effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the application was not a suitable vehicle for the claims as the contract was not founded on an "instrument" as required by Rule 14.05(3)(d), and the claims against the individual respondent for independent tort required an action and possibly a trial, not an application.

The court also declined to grant execution remedies without proper service and an opportunity for the respondents to participate.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interlocutory injunction to stay a decision lifting a stop work order, the court determined costs.

The applicant argued it was a public interest litigant and should not pay costs.

The court found the applicant's strategy of narrowing issues to natural justice lacked evidentiary support on the merits and that it was irresponsible to hide behind a lack of funds after asserting it could meet undertaking requirements.

Costs were fixed at $27,000 payable to the developer on a substantial indemnity basis and $5,000 payable to the municipality.