Case Name:

McDougall v. Andre Lanoue Pontiac Buick Inc.




Gerald McDougall, (plaintiff/appellant), and

Andre Lanoue Pontiac Buick Inc. Craig Lanoue,



[2006] O.J. No. 1515


Docket: C42947



 Ontario Court of Appeal

 Toronto, Ontario


J.I. Laskin, J.L. MacFarland and H.S. LaForme JJ.A.


Heard: April 13, 2006.

 Judgment: April 13, 2006.

 Released: April 19, 2006.


(4 paras.)


Civil procedure -- Appeals -- Appeal by McDougall from a decision denying a motion to amend his statement of claim dismissed -- The motion judge looked at the motion as a motion to add a new cause of action and had found non-compensable prejudice -- There was an evidentiary basis for that finding and it was not unreasonable.


Appeal From:

On appeal from the order of Justice Richard C. Gates of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 22, 2004 made at Windsor, Ontario.



Raymond Colautti for the appellant

Samuel A. Mossman for the respondent






The following judgment was delivered by

1     THE COURT (endorsement):-- If this were simply a motion to particularize allegations already in the statement of claim, then the motion was unnecessary. Particulars of the December 14 incident were given on discovery.

2     The motion judge, however, fairly looked at the motion as a motion to add a new cause of action. He found non-compensable prejudice and therefore denied the motion to amend.

3     In our view, there was an evidentiary basis for this finding. Although we might have come to a different conclusion, we cannot say that the motion judge's decision was unreasonable.

4     The appeal is therefore dismissed without costs.