The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to add the supervising lawyer of the defendant paralegal as a party defendant.
The proposed new defendant and the paralegal defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claim was untenable, statute-barred, and prejudicial, and requested a mid-hearing adjournment.
The court denied the adjournment as procedurally unfair.
The court granted leave to amend, finding the proposed pleading disclosed a tenable cause of action for negligent legal advice and that the limitations defence could not be fairly decided on the existing evidentiary record.
The amendment was granted without prejudice to the new defendant pursuing a limitations defence at trial.
