Maryam Shahidi

The plaintiff, Amos Tayts, brought a motion for leave to amend his amended statement of claim.

The defendants opposed specific proposed amendments, categorizing them into claims for breach of 'Zavet Group Terms' and breach of trust after the limitation period, pleadings of evidence, and withdrawal of an admission.

The court granted leave for all proposed amendments, finding that they did not introduce new causes of action after the limitation period, were sufficient for pleading purposes, and constituted necessary particulars rather than mere evidence.

The court reserved the issue of costs thrown away to the trial judge or summary judgment judge, but fixed the costs of the motion at $10,000.00 payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.

The defendants moved to set aside a noting in default and for leave to deliver a statement of defence, which the plaintiffs opposed.

The court applied the test from Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel, considering factors such as the parties' behaviour, delay, claim complexity, and prejudice.

Despite a lengthy, unexplained delay by the defendants, the court found it just to set aside the noting in default due to the plaintiffs' initial failure to notify the defendants' lawyer, the complexity and significant value of the franchise dispute, the arguable defence presented, and the preference for disputes to be determined on their merits.

Costs thrown away were awarded to the plaintiffs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action for the return of a $100,000 deposit on a real estate transaction.

The property's depth was significantly less than described in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The respondent vendor had manually added 'To be verified' next to the depth dimension.

The motion judge found this proviso shifted the risk of inaccuracy to the purchaser.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the proviso did not impose a pre-contractual obligation on the purchaser to verify dimensions, nor did it transfer the risk or negate the 'more or less' clause.

The deposit was ordered returned to the appellant.