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

A report is making waves because it reveals statistics about composition of juries in two Eastern Ontario regions, which lawyers say show how the system can be biased. Do you believe Ontario juries are representative of all the people who come before the court?