Vito S. Scalisi

The appellants appealed an application judge's finding that their solicitors' accounts were interim rather than final.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the determination was a question of fact and the application judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the accounts were interim based on the evidence.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision that dismissed their motion to amend their statement of defence and granted the respondent's cross-motion for judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred by hearing the final cross-motion before the interlocutory motion to amend.

The Court also held that the Master applied the incorrect test under Rule 26 by reversing the onus, as the opposing party must prove non-compensable prejudice to defeat a motion to amend.