Ronald Sleightholm

The appellant appealed a Master's decision refusing a proposed amendment to pleadings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Master that it was plain and obvious the facts could not support a finding of fiduciary duty, as the hallmarks of a fiduciary relationship were not present.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time for perfecting its appeal from a Master's order refusing an amendment to a statement of claim.

The appeal had been dismissed by the Registrar for delay.

The court found that the appellant had a continuing intention to appeal, there was sufficient merit to the appeal, the delay was adequately explained by a dispute over the wording of the Master's order, and the alleged prejudice was speculative.

The court granted the motion, set aside the Registrar's order, and extended the time to perfect the appeal.