|
Civil Litigation Cases - Amending Pleadings - General (4). Chanderpaul v. Caesars Convention Centre Ltd.
In Chanderpaul v. Caesars Convention Centre Ltd. (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed cross-appeals, here in an MVA negligence lawsuit context where alcohol-server liability and piercing the corporate veil were issues.
Here the court considered amending pleadings in an R21 ['striking pleadings'] context:[42] Moreover, as a matter of general principle, a motion judge’s decision to deny leave to amend involves the exercise of discretion and is entitled to deference: Hartman v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 270, at para. 73. Where it is plain and obvious that a claim cannot proceed, there is no requirement that a motion judge grant leave to amend: see, e.g. Abbasbayli v. Fiera Foods Company, 2021 ONCA 95, at para. 29. The hurdle the appellant faces here is that there is nothing in the record that shows a viable path to amend her pleadings such that these claims could properly proceed. . Hartman v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Hartman v. Canada (Attorney General) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought where "the motion judge struck the Claim [SS: under R21.01(1)(b)] in its entirety on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim had no reasonable prospect of success, even if supplemented with amendments proposed by the appellant".
Here the court considered the appellate SOR respecting leave to amend pleadings issues:[27] .... The motion judge’s decision to deny leave to amend was discretionary and is owed deference on appeal, absent a palpable and overriding error of fact or law: Conway v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONCA 72, 395 D.L.R. (4th) 100, at para. 16. . Hartman v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Hartman v. Canada (Attorney General) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought where "the motion judge struck the Claim [SS: under R21.01(1)(b)] in its entirety on the basis that it was plain and obvious that the Claim had no reasonable prospect of success, even if supplemented with amendments proposed by the appellant".
Here the court considers leave to amend pleadings issues:C. The motion judge did not err in refusing leave to amend the Claim
[69] The motion judge found that amendments proposed by the appellant were insufficient, since they merely repeated and expanded upon the same facts already pleaded without addressing the primary deficits in the Claim. Even with the proposed amendments, the Claim failed to plead material facts upon which it could be concluded either that the respondents had a private law duty of care towards the appellant’s son, or that they had subjective awareness that their actions were unlawful and likely to injure the appellant’s son. Having reviewed the proposed amendments, we see no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s findings that the proposed amendments would not have cured the deficiencies in the Claim.
[70] The appellant further argues that the Claim should be allowed to proceed because facts could emerge through the discovery process in support of the allegations of negligence or misfeasance. He relies upon this court’s decision in Shaulov v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 95, 166 O.R. (3d) 241, where this court granted leave to the appellant to amend his pleading and permitted his claim to proceed on the basis that the plaintiff required access to documents which were in the defendant’s possession in order to particularize his claim.
[71] In Shaulov, it was acknowledged that the defendant was in possession of documents at the heart of the plaintiff’s claim (the licencing examinations which the plaintiff alleged were discriminatory), and that the defendant refused to disclose them: Shaulov, at para. 17. No such circumstance or allegation exists in the present case. The preliminary data (December 2020, “Study 1”) and six-month data (April 2021, “Study 2”) from the Clinical Study, which the appellant alleges the respondents relied upon while approving and promoting the Vaccine, were published on December 31, 2020 and September 15, 2021, respectively. These reports are publicly available online and clearly were relied on by the appellant in drafting the Claim.
[72] As the Federal Court of Appeal pointedly observed in Painblanc v. Kastner (1991), 1991 CanLII 14420 (FCA), 58 C.P.R. (3d) 502 (F.C.A.), at p. 503, “[a]n action at law is not a fishing expedition and a plaintiff who starts proceedings simply in the hope that something will turn up abuses the court’s process”. The same principle was articulated by the Supreme Court in Imperial Tobacco, at para. 22:It is incumbent on the claimant to clearly plead the facts upon which it relies in making its claim. A claimant is not entitled to rely on the possibility that new facts may turn up as the case progresses. The claimant may not be in a position to prove the facts pleaded at the time of the motion. It may only hope to be able to prove them. But plead them it must. The facts pleaded are the firm basis upon which the possibility of success of the claim must be evaluated. If they are not pleaded, the exercise cannot be properly conducted. [73] The motion judge’s decision to deny leave to amend involved the exercise of discretion which is entitled to deference. We see no error in principle or palpable or overriding error that would justify intervention by this court.
|
