The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to add a $150,000 claim for punitive damages, alleging the defendants falsified a lease agreement.
She also sought to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from discoveries.
The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding the proposed claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff knew of the alleged alterations more than two years prior.
Furthermore, the amendment failed to plead an independent actionable wrong with sufficient particularity.
On the discovery issues, the court ordered the defendants to answer two outstanding undertakings and one refusal, but found the remaining questions were either already answered or properly refused for irrelevance.
