Scottish & York Insurance Co. v. Canada
T-2384-86
Teitelbaum J.
15/1/98
14 pp.
Motion for order granting leave to defendant to amend statement of defence by adding four paragraphs-Security Mutual Casualty Company Illinois insurer licensed to carry on business in Canada-In 1981, Security became insolvent in United States-Liquidator made agreement to allow Cooperators General Insurance Company to buy Canadian business of Security-Plaintiffs policy holders of Security's Canadian branch who acted as reinsurers for plaintiffs-Defendant held deposits from Security in reserve pursuant to reinsurance treaties-Co-operators claimed reserves released to it did not include reinsurance reserves-Plaintiffs subsequently commenced action against defendant for negligence on October 30, 1986-Action against defendant grounded on alleged negligence of Superintendent of Insurance in advising Minister to release reserves and sanction purchase and sale agreement-Plaintiffs submitting amendment to defendant's pleadings would cause them serious prejudice-Law concerning Court's discretion to allow party to amend pleadings clear-General rule under R. 420(1) amendment should be allowed for purpose of determining real questions in controversy between parties provided allowance would not result in injustice to other party not capable of being compensated by award of costs-Evidence showing plaintiffs, defendant acting in concert-Parties did interview at least one witness together, met on other occasions-Trial strategy of plaintiffs affected, could have prejudicial effect on them-Court cannot concern itself with whether plaintiffs may be suffering prejudice in separate action in Ontario General Court-Strategy plaintiffs adopted for several years must now change-Plaintiffs worked with defendant without realizing issue of where cause of action arose may become determinative of outcome herein-That defendant did not raise applicability of Public Authorities Protection Act due to caution not reasonable excuse-Amendments should not be allowed because plaintiffs would suffer prejudice which could not be adequately compensated by costs-Motion dismissed-Public Authorities Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.38-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 420(1).