The respondents also argue that because the trial judge correctly articulated the applicable test to determine whether an amendment discloses a new cause of action, this court may not interfere with his finding in the absence of an error of law, an error in principle or a palpable and overriding error: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235. (c) Analysis
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.