14. The plaintiff submitted that she will suffer non-compensable prejudice if these amendments are permitted. The plaintiff argued that she has lost the ability to make a claim against her current lawyers for missing these limitation periods due to the expiry of the limitation period for bringing a negligence claim against her current lawyers. I do not accept this argument. The evidence on this motion indicates that the plaintiff and her current lawyers had no idea that the defendants in this action would be asserting a limitation defence until April 2016 at the earliest. There is no other evidence before the court on this motion to suggest that the plaintiff may have been aware of a limitation issue with this claim before that date. The onus is on the party opposing the amendments to demonstrate non-compensable prejudice. See Tate v. Bishop, 2015 ONSC 742 (Master) (CanLII) at paragraph 23. In my view, the plaintiff has not done so. These proposed amendments also comply with the rules of pleading and are tenable at law.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.