The relative ease with which an amendment to a pleading can be made is subject to certain other considerations. This was confirmed by Wright J. in Davidson v. Manitoba Hydro, [1999] M.J. No. 276, at para 10: 10 . . . these cases indicate a court should give consideration to a number of factors, including the issues of delay and prejudice or any other injustice, and whether any prejudice can be adequately compensated by adjournment or costs or both. As well, the court should reject the motion if the proposed amendment is without merit on its face, such as disclosing no relevant cause of action. In deciding the last question, the court will have to ascertain whether sufficient particulars are alleged, and can also receive assistance by reference to the tests applicable on an application to strike out a statement of claim on grounds no reasonable cause of action is disclosed. These tests are, if anything, more stringent than the tests on a request for amendment, but, even so, favour allowing rather than rejecting the claim. (c) Limitations of time
"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.