In Vaiman v. Yates (1987), 1987 CanLII 4345 (ON SC), 60 O.R. (2d) 696 (Ont. H.C.), decided after the amendments, Rosenberg J., at p. 698, asked: Why should the defendant be faced with an amendment and then have to move to strike it out on the grounds that it discloses no cause of action. If the master is of the opinion that it discloses no cause of action, he should not allow the amendment and state his reasons. The plaintiff then has the right to appeal. Molloy J. calls this a “logical rationale. I agree.
"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.