Ontario Civil



Amendment to defence would result in prejudice to plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs

Jury found plaintiff was charged more than plaintiff owed on properties. Damages were assessed at $24,000. Verdict was endorsed on trial record. Judgment was not granted. Defendant argued action had to be dismissed relying on exclusion of liability clause in defendant’s condition of service. Defendant’s pleading was deficient. Material facts were omitted. It was not in interests of justice to allow defendant to maintain defence defendant did not adequately plead. Motion to amend statement of defence and counterclaim was never brought. Trial was complete. Evidentiary record could not be supplemented. Plaintiff was deprived of opportunity to call other evidence. Amendment to defence and counterclaim would result in prejudice to plaintiff that could not be compensated by costs. Judgment was granted in accordance with jury’s verdict.

Gyimah v. Toronto Hydro-Electric System Ltd.

(Jan. 30, 2012, Ont. S.C.J., Grace J., File No. CV-08-00356801) 212 A.C.W.S. (3d) 59 (12 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

An Ontario lawyer says that solicitor-client privilege may be threatened by a master’s decision that barred him from representing his own firm in a dispute over a wrongful dismissal claim. Do you agree with the lawyer's assessment?