Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Applicant sought permission to amend his Counterclaim to add breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, general damages, and statutory claims under the Sale of Goods Act and the Consumer Protection Act.
   
• Regency opposed the amendments, arguing they would cause serious prejudice not compensable in costs and that they were statute-barred.
   
• Timing was central to the dispute, since the amendment application was brought after the Applicant had closed his case and near the end of Regency's evidence at trial.
   
• Prior pleadings consistently denied any contractual relationship between the Applicant and Regency, with the Applicant instead alleging a contract with HighPro WestWeld Ltd.
   
• Section 6 of the Limitations Act was considered to determine whether the proposed claims arose from the same conduct, transaction, or events as the original pleadings.
   
• Justice Martin denied the application, finding both serious prejudice to Regency and a limitations bar.
   

Facts of the case

Regency Innovations Inc. commenced this action against Abdul Wehbe and Hanadi Wehbe on January 29, 2021, claiming under the Builders' Lien Act for breach of contract, debt, damages, and unjust enrichment. The Wehbes filed a Statement of Defence denying the allegations, and Abdul Wehbe filed a Counterclaim against Regency and HighPro WestWeld Ltd. In the Counterclaim, Abdul Wehbe alleged that he had contracted with HighPro for general contracting services, that HighPro had subcontracted the construction and installation of custom cabinetry to Regency, and that Regency had been negligent in performing that work. HighPro's Statement of Defence acknowledged a contract with Abdul Wehbe but denied acting as general contractor or subcontracting the cabinetry work to Regency. On April 30, 2026, shortly before the scheduled five-day trial, counsel for Regency advised that Regency would abandon its claim against the Wehbes, leaving the trial to proceed on the Counterclaim and the issue of negligence. Between May 4 and May 7, 2026, the Applicant called four witnesses and Regency began calling its evidence. On the morning of May 7, 2026, before Regency's final witness testified, the Applicant applied to amend his pleadings to add claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, general damages, and statutory breaches.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The application engaged Rules 3.62(1)(c), 3.65, and 3.67 of the Alberta Rules of Court, which govern amendments to pleadings after close of pleadings, either by consent or with leave of the court. Section 3 of the Limitations Act sets the applicable limitation period, while section 6 permits amendments after expiry of that period where the added claim relates to the conduct, transaction, or events described in the original pleadings. The proposed amendments also invoked the Sale of Goods Act, under which the Applicant alleged that Regency failed to supply cabinets that were reasonably fit for their purpose or of merchantable quality, and the Consumer Protection Act, under which the Applicant alleged that Regency overstated the quality and standard of materials used. The Applicant's proposed breach of contract claim rested on an alleged text-message agreement of May 11, 2020, under which Regency purportedly agreed to complete outstanding work and remedy deficiencies by June 2020.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Martin applied the established test for amending pleadings, under which the amending party must show some evidence to support the amendment, subject to exceptions including serious prejudice not compensable in costs and claims barred by a limitation period. On breach of contract, the court found the Applicant had consistently and expressly denied any contractual relationship with Regency throughout the litigation, instead pleading a contract with HighPro. Allowing the amendment at this late stage, after nearly all evidence had been called, would require Regency to investigate and respond to an entirely new factual and legal theory it had no opportunity to address during documentary production, questioning, or trial preparation. The court distinguished the case from Breen v Foremost Industries Ltd, where the amendment merely particularized facts already pleaded, and found it more analogous to Sorrell v eQube Technology and Software Inc, where a late-added contractual claim created unfair prejudice after years of litigation on a different basis. The court reached similar conclusions regarding the proposed negligent misrepresentation, general damages, and statutory claims, finding that each would introduce new factual inquiries, including evidence about Regency's website and promotional materials and the Applicant's alleged emotional distress, for which Regency had no opportunity to prepare. On the limitations issue, the court held that the proposed claims did not arise from the same conduct, transaction, or events as the original pleadings, applying the framework in DeSoto Resources Limited v EnCana Corporation, and therefore fell outside the exception in section 6 of the Limitations Act.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Martin dismissed the Applicant's application to amend his pleadings in its entirety. The court concluded that permitting the breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, general damages, and statutory amendments would cause Regency serious prejudice that could not be remedied through costs or a procedural order, and that the proposed claims were, in any event, barred by the Limitations Act. No monetary award, cost order, or damages figure was granted or specified in the decision — the ruling addressed only the amendment application, and the underlying claims (including the Applicant's referenced $60,000 general damages figure) were not adjudicated on their merits. Regency was the successful party on this application.