Olivia Eng

The plaintiff, Sharna Gayle, brought a motion to amend her Amended Statement of Claim in a solicitor's negligence action against Lerners LLP and its lawyers.

The proposed amendments sought to increase the damages claimed from $1,000,000 to $20,000,000 and to add extensive particulars detailing the alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, including allegations of conflict of interest due to "religious and personal affiliations." The court granted the amendment to increase the damages, affirming that such an increase does not constitute prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion to add the detailed particulars, finding that these proposed amendments violated Rule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by pleading evidence, explanations, and submissions rather than concise material facts.

The court also found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action and that the delay in seeking amendments was not excessive enough to presume non-compensable prejudice.

The applicant, a residents' association, sought judicial review of a municipal council decision approving a site plan application and heritage impact assessment for a large warehouse development in a heritage conservation district.

The applicant argued the council breached its procedural by-law by reconsidering the application without notice and acted in bad faith.

The Divisional Court granted the applicant public interest standing and found the application was not moot.

However, the court dismissed the application, holding that the city did not owe the applicant a duty of procedural fairness.

While the council did breach its procedural by-law regarding notice for the reconsideration motion, the breach did not amount to illegality or bad faith sufficient to quash the decision.