The defendant brought a motion under Rule 51.06 seeking dismissal of the action based on alleged admissions concerning the lease and the proper party to advance the claim.
The plaintiff also moved under Rules 5.04(2) and 26.01 to amend its statement of claim to add several affiliated corporate plaintiffs asserting losses arising from the failure of a franchised coffee shop allegedly caused by the landlord’s breach of a commercial lease.
The court held that the defendant failed to establish the stringent requirements for judgment based on admissions under Rule 51.06 because material factual and legal issues remained for trial, including interpretation of the lease obligations regarding paving.
The court further held that adding the proposed corporate plaintiffs after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period constituted the addition of new parties rather than correction of a misnomer.
Relying on appellate authority, the court found that the proposed amendment would violate the Limitations Act, 2002 and cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.
