Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Lawrence v. Canada ( Royal Canadian Mounted Police )

T-1714-94

Hargrave P.

6/11/96

9 pp.

Motion to substantially amend defence-In main action, begun in July 1994, plaintiff, constable in RCMP, seeking damages as result of riding accident during training in October 1992-In January 1996, parties signed and filed agreed statement pursuant to R. 485 wherein plaintiff included additional claim based on Occupiers' Liability Act of Ontario-Crown seeking to add paragraphs to defence to answer claim based on Occupiers' Liability Act-Issues (1) whether amendments to defence ought to be granted, as might be prejudicial to plaintiff, and (2) if decision appealed and if court should find amendments ought to have been granted, defendant nonetheless particularly unable to plead, in response to occupiers' liability claim in R. 485 statement, that plea time barred as plea then forming part of statement of claim issued within relevant limitation period-Motion denied-Principal reason amendment denied prejudice to plaintiff-At such late date, there can be no effective preparation for trial and thus plaintiff cannot be compensated for surprise and injustice if amendment allowed-Plaintiff would require further discovery-Also, amendments fail to comply with R. 409 requiring statute of limitation or prescription be specifically pleaded-To bring into play limitation or prescription, proper to set out material facts giving rise to invocation of prescription periods relied upon (not done herein)-Furthermore, amendments ought not to be granted if will complicate or lengthen proceeding unduly, as might be case herein-Amendment referring to Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act irrelevant, would serve no useful purpose and ought not to be allowed: Act not applicable to plaintiff, as lacking required number of years of service-Amendment referring to Pension Act should not be allowed as far too speculative to say future pension might be awarded on basis of plaintiff's present state of health-In any event, issue of pension would require expert medical evidence, which has not been arranged-Counsel for defendant, by agreeing to amendment, by way of R. 485 statement, without reservation, ought not to be allowed to challenge plea by bringing up statute of limitation plea any more than could defendant have challenged Occupiers' Liability plea had it been amendment allowed not by consent, but by court order with amendment speaking from date of filing of statement of claim, when plea would not have been time-barred-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 409, 485-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-11-Pension Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-6.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.