... a discretionary ruling under the Civil Procedure Rules [N.S. Civ. Pro. Rules], including one that terminates a proceeding, is reviewable if it results in a patent injustice, even without an associated error of law. Would the chambers judge's denial of [the plaintiff's] request to further amend his claim result in a patent injustice?
“Injustice” has a flexible meaning for which guidance may be deduced from the Rules. Rule 1.01 describes the “Object of these Rules” as:
These Rules are for the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every proceeding.
The Rules offer litigants the opportunity to shepherd a claim, that is sustainable on its face, toward a proper resolution by settlement or trial. That is a “just determination”. The denial of the amendment withdrew that opportunity from [the plaintiff].
Innocente v. Canada (Attorney General) |
2012 CarswellNS 233 (N.S. C.A.) at para. 48, 49, 50, 51 |
Fichaud J.A. (MacDonald C.J.N.S. and Bryson J.A. concurring)