YRCECC No 1210 v. 7 Brighton Place Inc. 2019 Ont SCJ
A defendant moved to amend its crossclaim against its co-defendant. It asserted that its amendment was not a new cause of action; rather it merely set out particulars to its existing breach of contact allegation. The Master noted that a “generic pleading cannot stand as a ‘perpetual placeholder’ for future claims which may arise or be contemplated by the parties.” The Master noted that the Rules mandated leave be granted for an amendment of pleadings unless a party would suffer prejudice from the amendment not compensable by costs. The passage of a limitation period is an example of prejudice. In this case, the Master held that the limitation period had passed for the new action and refused leave to amend.
Written by Jonathan Speigel, the founding partner of Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, leads the litigation and construction practices.