The plaintiff moved on the eve of trial for leave to amend its statement of claim and to add a new defendant alleged to have perpetrated a fraud involving a mortgage loan and bank draft transaction.
The proposed amendments also sought to introduce new allegations of conspiracy and fraud against existing defendants.
The court held that while the proposed new defendant was a proper and potentially necessary party to the litigation, the amendments asserting conspiracy against the existing defendants constituted new causes of action that were statute‑barred and inadequately pleaded.
The court permitted joinder of the new defendant with limited amendments alleging direct fraud but refused the broader conspiracy amendments against the existing defendants.
The motion was therefore granted only in part.
