Date: 20010829
Docket: T-1839-99
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 966
BETWEEN:
DAVID IAIN TENCH
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion for an order striking out the further amended statement of claim filed on July 3, 2001.
[2] This action was commenced by the plaintiff on October 20, 1999.
[3] On November 12, 1999, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim and on December 9, 1999, the plaintiff filed a further amended statement of claim.
[4] On January 18, 2000, the defendant filed a notice of motion to have the further amended statement of claim, dated December 9, 1999, struck out. This motion was heard on March 14, 2000 before Honourable Justice O'Keefe and the motion was allowed in part.
[5] On July 12, 2000, the defendant filed her statement of defence and a reply to the defence was filed on July 27, 2000.
[6] After a notice of status review, by order dated January 25, 2001, the Honourable Madame Justice Heneghan held that the action not to be dismissed for delay and that the parties proceed with the goal of filing the requisition for a pre-trial conference by November 30, 2001.
[7] Examinations for discovery of both parties were conducted from April 2-6, 2001. The examinations of both parties are complete pending any further examinations arising from the undertakings.
[8] On July 3, 2001, the plaintiff filed a further amended statement of claim.
[9] Rule 200 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, reads:
| 200. Notwithstanding rules 75 and 76, a party may, without leave, amend any of its pleadings at any time before another party has pleaded thereto or on the filing of the written consent of the other parties.
|
|
200. Malgré les règles 75 et 76, une partie peut, sans autorisation, modifier l'un de ses actes de procédure à tout moment avant qu'une autre partie y ait répondu ou sur dépôt du consentement écrit des autres parties.
|
| |
|
|
[10] Rules 75 and 76 read:
| 75. (1) Subject to subsection (2) and rule 76, the Court may, on motion, at any time, allow a party to amend a document, on such terms as will protect the rights of all parties.
Limitation
(2) No amendment shall be allowed under subsection (1) during or after a hearing unless
(a) the purpose is to make the document accord with the issues at the hearing;
(b) a new hearing is ordered; or
(c) the other parties are given an opportunity for any preparation necessary to meet any new or amended allegations.
|
|
75. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2) et de la règle 76, la Cour peut à tout moment, sur requête, autoriser une partie à modifier un document, aux conditions qui permettent de protéger les droits de toutes les parties.
Conditions
(2) L'autorisation visée au paragraphe (1) ne peut être accordée pendant ou après une audience que si, selon le cas :
a) l'objet de la modification est de faire concorder le document avec les questions en litige à l'audience;
b) une nouvelle audience est ordonnée;
c) les autres parties se voient accorder l'occasion de prendre les mesures préparatoires nécessaires pour donner suite aux prétentions nouvelles ou révisées.
|
| |
|
|
| 76. With leave of the Court, an amendment may be made
(a) to correct the name of a party, if the Court is satisfied that the mistake sought to be corrected was not such as to cause a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party, or
(b) to alter the capacity in which a party is bringing a proceeding, if the party could have commenced the proceeding in its altered capacity at the date of commencement of the proceeding,
unless to do so would result in prejudice to a party that would not be compensable by costs or an adjournment.
|
|
76. Un document peut être modifié pour l'un des motifs suivants avec l'autorisation de la Cour, sauf lorsqu'il en résulterait un préjudice à une partie qui ne pourrait être réparé au moyen de dépens ou par un ajournement :
a) corriger le nom d'une partie, si la Cour est convaincue qu'il s'agit d'une erreur qui ne jette pas un doute raisonnable sur l'identité de la partie;
b) changer la qualité en laquelle la partie introduit l'instance, dans le cas où elle aurait pu introduire l'instance en cette nouvelle qualité à la date du début de celle-ci.
|
| |
|
|
[11] In my view, it is clear that once the defence has been filed, the plaintiff cannot amend any of its pleadings unless it has the leave of the Court or the consent of the opposing party.
[12] It is clear that the applicant has not requested leave of the Court nor obtained the consent of the defendant.
[13] The applicant already had the opportunity to amend his statement of claim twice and the requisition for a pre-trial conference has to be filed before November 30, 2001.
[14] The applicant has not provided any submissions to explain why the Court should grant leave to amend the statement of claim.
[15] For these reasons, THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
The further amended statement of claim filed on July 3, 2001 be struck with costs payable forthwith.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 29, 2001
Email this Content