The plaintiff appealed an order of a Master granting a defendant leave to withdraw an admission in a statement of defence that a taxi driver was an employee of the taxi company.
The court applied the three‑part test for withdrawal of admissions under rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a triable issue, inadvertence, and absence of non‑compensable prejudice.
The court held the admission was inadvertent and that the withdrawal would not cause prejudice because the plaintiff could still pursue liability against the taxi company and explore the nature of the relationship through discovery.
The potential loss of access to higher insurance limits did not constitute legal prejudice.
The appeal was dismissed.
