The Court granted late leave to amend the summons to include references to owl foraging area and prey habitat within the concept of 'habitat', finding that despite an inadequate explanation for delay, the opposing party suffered no genuine prejudice because the issue was already squarely raised in expert evidence filed by both sides. The Court held that the respondent's overly narrow conception of 'habitat' as excluding foraging areas was untenable, and that any failure to respond to the foraging issue was attributable to the respondent's own forensic choices rather than the lateness of the amendment. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs thrown away by the amendment.
The full text is available to signed-in members.