Preface
I believe that equity dictates that if a defendant knows that the “finger of litigation” is pointing in its direction, and an action is commenced on a timely basis based on specific actions, this court ought to take appropriate steps to ensure that the true lis between the parties is addressed, rather than permitting one party to perhaps escape its possible liability by relying upon a technical Limitations Act defence.
[1] The plaintiff, Peter Sbaraglia (“Sbaraglia”), commenced an action against the defendant, Canada Life Assurance Company (“Canada Life”), alleging breach of contract. Sbaraglia sought a declaration that he met the definition of total disability under his Long Term Disability (“LTD”) insurance, and claimed damages based on Canada Life’s denial of his LTD benefits.
[2] Sbaraglia now seeks to amend his Statement of Claim to add further particulars and to increase the quantum of damages claimed as a result of Canada Life’s denial and breach of contract. Canada Life opposes the amendment.
[35] That Court’s Conclusion aptly summarizes my conclusion as well:
46 The plaintiff is entitled to assert a claim for breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing and seek punitive damages arising from that alleged breach. The alleged breach, as set out in the amendments, is an actionable wrong independent of the alleged wrongful termination of disability benefits, but it is not an independent cause of action in this case. Therefore, the motion judge did not err in law when he allowed the amendments to the plaintiff’s statement of claim.
[36] In the result the Plaintiff’s motion is allowed and leave is granted to deliver a Fresh as Amended pleading containing the requested amendments within 30 days.