Yes No Share to Facebook
Amending a Pleading: Changes Following Expiry of the Limitation Period
Question: Can I amend my pleadings after the limitation period has expired?
Answer: Yes, but amendments are only permitted if the original pleadings include all the necessary material facts supporting the new claims or theories. In the case of Kanhai v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2024 ONSC 3986, the court clarified that amendments must arise from the same factual matrix as originally pleaded. Mole Legal Services provides guidance on navigating these complexities, ensuring that your amendments comply with legal standards while protecting your interests. Reach out today for a consultation to understand your options!
Amending Pleadings After Limitation Period Expiration
The amendment of a pleading after the expiration of the limitation period remains a significant issue within litigative proceedings. Such amendments often involve adding new causes of action, proposing additional legal theories, or modifying damages claims, whereas all such amendments are dependent upon previously pleaded material facts; and accordingly, amendments that are for a purpose other than the stating of previously omitted material facts are, generally, permissible and will be allowed by the court. Amendments seeking to add material facts that were omitted from pleadings raised during the limitation period will, generally, be forbidden.
The Law
The case of Kanhai v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2024 ONSC 3986, provides insightful guidance into what constitutes as a proper and permissible amendment to a pleading following the expiration of a relevant limitation period. Specifically, in the Kanhai case, it was said:
[7] Where a claim already pleads substantially all of the material facts that give rise to the further proposed remedies, amendments that set out an alternative claim for relief arising out of the same general factual matrix previously pleaded are not a new cause of action. (Galluzzi v Pearlann Consulting Inc. 2017 ONSC 3298 at paragraph 9). I note the language of the “same factual matrix” was specifically referenced by the HRTO in its decision dismissing the plaintiff’s application, reproduced at paragraph 5, infra.
[8] This motion to amend the statement of claim is on all fours with Klassen v Beausoleil 2019 ONCA 407 which held at paragraph 28:
An amendment does not assert a new cause of action - and therefore is not impermissibly statute-barred - if the “original pleading contains all the facts necessary to support the amendments ... such that the amendments simply claim additional forms of relief, or clarify the relief sought, based on the same facts as originally pleaded." … Put somewhat differently, an amendment will be refused when it seeks to advance, after the expiry of a limitation period, a "fundamentally different claim" based on facts not originally pleaded: North Elgin, at para. 23.
[9] Unlike Robins v PricewaterhouseCoopers 2017 ONSC 1778, on which the defendant relies, the proposed amendment in this instance is not a factually distinct claim from what was originally pleaded. A review of the proposed amendments confirms that it does not add any new paragraphs except under the prayer for relief and the deletion of the rationale for not claiming the human rights damages in the original pleading. As noted in Di Filippo v Bank of Nova Scotia 2024 ONCA 33 at paragraph 40:
If a statement of claim pleads all the necessary facts to ground a claim on one or more legal basis, and the original statement of claim only asserts one of the legal bases - that is, one cause of action based on those facts - the statement of claim can be amended more than two years after the claim was discovered to assert another legal basis for a remedy arising out of the same facts - that is, another cause of action. This is because it is only the discovery of the claim, as defined in the Limitations Act and the case law, that is time barred under s. 4, not the discovery of any particular legal basis for the proceeding.
Analysis of Precedent
The principles guiding pleading amendments following limitation period expiry hinges upon established case law. As above, in Kanhai, the court highlighted pivotal cases. Within the highlighted cases, Klassen v. Beausoleil, 2019 ONCA 407, clarified that amendments are permissible where the original pleadings contain the necessary material fact details. In contrast, the case of Robins v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2017 ONSC 1778, illustrated scenarios where amendments would advance distinct claims, consequently falling outside permissible scope. The case of Di Filippo v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2024 ONCA 33, further solidified that amendments can occur when pleadings sufficiently outline facts relevant to multiple legal bases.
Conclusion
The ability to amend pleadings after the expiry of a limitation period highlights both flexibility and restrictions that are subject to whether the material facts required to support the proposed amendment were sufficiently pleaded prior to expiry of the limitation period.