The Prothonotary struck all allegations in a Second Further
Amended Statement of Claim against two Defendants without leave to
amend. The action was dismissed against these Defendants. After
reviewing the issues de novo, a motions Judge of the Federal Court
upheld the decision, and on appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed
The Court of Appeal held that it was unable to find any error of
law, or any other error, in the finding of the motions Judge that
the pleading was fatally deficient. The remaining issue on appeal
was whether leave to amend should have been granted. The Court of
Appeal wrote that it is appropriate for the motions Judge to
consider all relevant circumstances in determining whether to grant
leave to amend deficient pleadings. After reviewing the
circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal found that it was
reasonable for the motions Judge to deny leave to amend.
The applicant filed an application to register a trade-mark. The
respondent filed a statement of opposition, the Trade-marks
Opposition Board (Board) allowed the opposition and the applicant
appealed this finding. The Court first converted the proceeding
from a judicial review application to an appeal of the Board. The
Court reviewed the statement of opposition and other materials
filed by the parties, and found that the Board based its decision
on a ground that was not raised by the respondent in its
opposition. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Board's
decision and referred the matter to another Board member for
redetermination on the grounds of opposition raised by the
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).