Stephen R. Dyment

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of claim against Tarion Warranty Corporation and to add the Home Construction Regulatory Authority (HCRA) as a defendant.

The proposed amendments included new allegations regarding a 2007 provincial offences conviction, a 2016 refusal to register, and a 2019 notice of proposal.

The court granted the motion in part, allowing amendments that clarified existing claims or arose from the same factual matrix, but refusing amendments that introduced new, statute-barred causes of action or sought relief outside the court's jurisdiction.

The court also permitted the plaintiffs to add the HCRA as a defendant for a damages claim, but refused to allow a claim for a mandatory order against the regulator, holding that such relief must be sought by way of judicial review in the Divisional Court.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim under Rule 60.12, alleging non-compliance with trial management directions to deliver a Scott Schedule.

The court found that while the defendants' Scott Schedule was imperfect, they had made a good faith effort to comply and offered to revise it expeditiously upon retaining new counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that striking pleadings is a draconian measure reserved for repeated and blatant disregard of court orders.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants because the plaintiff unreasonably forced the motion and ignored a favourable offer to settle.