Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff sought to amend his civil claim to add new causes of action including negligent misrepresentation and aggravated damages.

• Defendants opposed the amendments, arguing the new claims were time-barred and would cause prejudice due to the upcoming trial.

• The court permitted most amendments, finding they were based on facts already pleaded and did not cause material prejudice.

• Claims involving “route-finding,” vague misrepresentations, and aggravated damages were denied as either new, prejudicial, or improperly pled.

• The negligent misrepresentation claims were allowed, subject to proper particularization and removal of overly broad language.

• No costs or damages were awarded at this stage; costs of the application were left to be decided at trial.

Facts and outcome of the case

The case arises from a mountaineering accident on July 15, 2021, during a guided rock-climbing trip on Mount Rogers in Glacier National Park, British Columbia. The plaintiff, Ian Manson, fell approximately seven metres after a rock was dislodged by his guide, Jeffrey Mitchell. The fall also caused Mitchell to fall, with both suffering injuries. Manson alleged the accident was caused by Mitchell’s negligence during the climb, including improper belay setup and careless rock stability testing.

Manson sued Mitchell, Mitchell’s company Revelstoke Alpine School Inc., and the Association of Canadian Mountain Guides (ACMG), which had certified Mitchell as a professional guide. His original claims included negligence and breach of contract. Later, Manson applied to amend his Notice of Civil Claim to include new claims of negligent misrepresentation against all three defendants, as well as claims for aggravated and punitive damages. The defendants objected, arguing that the amendments introduced new causes of action after the expiry of the limitation period and would prejudice their ability to prepare for trial, which was scheduled for October 2025.

The court allowed most of the proposed amendments. It held that the negligent misrepresentation claims, while new causes of action, were based on facts already pleaded in the original claim and did not cause sufficient prejudice to bar them. The plaintiff was ordered to provide more specific details about the alleged misrepresentations and to remove overly vague references, such as reserving the right to add further representations before trial. The court rejected some proposed amendments, particularly those alleging a failure to choose a safe route (referred to as “route-finding”), statements deemed to be opinions rather than facts, and a claim for aggravated damages based on post-incident conduct.

The court ruled that the claim for punitive damages could proceed but only if it was clearly based on specific alleged misconduct already detailed in the pleadings. It also dismissed arguments that the trial should be adjourned due to the amendments, noting that most of the new claims were either clarifications or closely related to existing allegations.

As a result, the court granted leave to amend the civil claim in part and directed the plaintiff to file a revised Amended Notice of Civil Claim within 14 days. No damages were awarded at this stage, and the costs of the application were reserved to be determined following trial.