Where a plaintiff seeks to add a new cause of action after the limitation period has expired under O.32 r.1(5), the 'substantially the same facts' requirement is not satisfied merely because the same employer-employee relationship existed and the same type of injury was suffered. The precise duties of care are correlative to the breaches alleged, and where the breaches of duty are quite different, the causes of action do not arise out of substantially the same facts.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.