In Cuthbert v. Nolis (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered an amendment of 'pleadings' (in the family law context 'pleadings' comprise of 'applications, answers and replies'):
(iii) Trial judge did not err by allowing the respondent to amend his pleadings
[17] As it did not give rise to any prejudice, or otherwise disadvantage the appellant, the trial judge did not err by permitting the respondent to amend his pleadings at trial. The appellant had ample opportunity to present her case and respond to the respondent’s position. Moreover, it is well-established that the test for leave to amend under r. 11(3) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 strongly favours permitting amendments except in the clearest of cases: Studley v. Studley, 2022 ONCA 810, at para. 15; Davidson v. Davidson, 2021 ONSC 7459, at para. 22. The trial judge reasonably concluded that this was not such a case, and his decision is entitled to deference: Studley, at para. 15.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
