Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
|
|
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Category:Rules of Procedure (SCSM)]]
| |
| [[Category:Small Claims]]
| |
|
| |
|
| ==[https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/980258 O. Reg. 258/98: RULES OF THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT]==
| |
|
| |
| 12.01 (1) A plaintiff’s or defendant’s claim and a defence to a plaintiff’s or defendant’s claim may be amended by filing with the clerk a copy that is marked “Amended”, in which any additions are underlined and any other changes are identified. O. Reg. 258/98, r. 12.01 (1).
| |
|
| |
| (2) The amended document shall be served by the party making the amendment on all parties, including any parties in default, in accordance with subrule 8.01 (14). O. Reg. 258/98, r. 12.01 (2); O. Reg. 78/06, s. 25 (1).
| |
|
| |
| (3) Filing and service of the amended document shall take place at least 30 days before the originally scheduled trial date, unless,
| |
| ::(a) the court, on motion, allows a shorter notice period; or
| |
| ::(b) a clerk’s order permitting the amendment is obtained under subrule 11.2.01 (1). O. Reg. 393/09, s. 13.
| |
|
| |
| (4) A person added as a party shall be served with the claim as amended, except that if the person is added as a party at trial, the court may dispense with service of the claim. O. Reg. 258/98, r. 12.01 (4).
| |
|
| |
| ==[http://canlii.ca/t/grtf3 Olumide v. Canada, 2016 FC 558 (CanLII)]==
| |
|
| |
| [24] <b><u>Amendments for pleadings should be allowed at any stage of an action for the “purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties”</b></u> ([http://canlii.ca/t/23x32 Varco Canada Limited v Pason Systems Corp, 2009 FC 555, at para 25 (Varco Canada))]. However, amendments will be denied, and pleadings will be struck, when it is plain and obvious that the underlying claim discloses no reasonable cause of action (Varco Canada, at para 26; Cardinal v R (1993), 72 FTR 309, 46 ACWS (3d) 377). In this case, the Applicant’s amendments just build on his theory of the case. They do not remedy the fact that he does not challenge the conduct of some “federal board, commission or other tribunal” so as to trigger his right to bring a judicial review application and the Court’s authority to entertain it.
| |
