Law360 Canada (March 24, 2023, 6:43 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the appellants from the motion judge’s decision refusing to allow an amendment to their pleading after the action was set down for trial. The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in law as there was neither prejudice nor presumed prejudice causally related or flowing from the proposed amendment. The appellant tripped and fell at his workplace. The Statement of Claim was issued and was later amended to name the appellant’s wife as his litigation guardian. Neither the original nor amended Statement of Claim included a claim for punitive damages. A Statement of Defence was served by the respondent disputing liability, causation and damages. Roughly six and a half years after the action was commenced, and six weeks before the 32-day trial was to commence, the appellants sought leave to add a claim for punitive damages in the amount of $2 million and increase the amount of damages claimed from $4 million to $7 million. The motion judge dismissed the request to add the claim for punitive damages. She did, however, grant their request to increase the quantum of damages claimed from $4 million to $7 million....