2 total
Amendment adding insurer bad‑faith claim allowed where based on already‑pleaded facts.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim in an action against their insurer arising from a residential fuel oil spill.
The proposed amendments sought to increase damages and add claims for breach of the insurer's duty of good faith together with punitive, aggravated, and exemplary damages.
The defendant argued that the amendments introduced a new cause of action barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that it would suffer non‑compensable prejudice.
The court held that the amendments relied on the same material facts already pleaded and merely advanced an alternative legal claim and additional remedies.
As all relevant facts were pleaded before the limitation period expired and no prejudice was demonstrated, leave to amend was granted.
Certainty of a defendant's responsibility is not required to trigger the limitation period.
The respondents contracted with the appellants to build a new home and with third parties for stucco finishing.
After experiencing water leaks, the respondents sued the appellants for negligence and breach of contract.
The appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the two-year limitation period.
The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondents did not have sufficient knowledge of which party was responsible until they received expert reports.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that certainty of a defendant's responsibility is not required to trigger the limitation period, and expert opinions are not always necessary.
The action was statute-barred.
