A late application to amend a defence to raise a Contracts Review Act claim will be refused where the applicant has failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay, has conducted the proceedings in a dilatory manner, and the bona fides of the proposed amendment are questionable — even where the proposed amendment raises a potentially meritorious defence supported by documentary evidence. The failure of a primary judge to expressly refer to a particular document does not necessarily vitiate the exercise of discretion where the same discretionary considerations (delay and lack of bona fides) apply equally to that document.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 24 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 24 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.