The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that a plaintiff’s original discovery answers and subsequent affidavit evidence may both be considered in an upcoming summary judgment motion concerning ownership of a motorcycle.
In Bennett v. Arsenault, 2026 ONSC 5547, Justice Mew did not determine ownership or the merits of the plaintiff’s allegations about the sale. The October 1 endorsement addressed amendments to the statement of claim and the treatment of evidence ahead of a motion scheduled for December 2026.
Original answers remain part of the record
The dispute arose from Justyn Bennett’s discovery evidence that she understood she had purchased and owned the motorcycle. At the hearing, the parties agreed that the ownership answer had to be read in the context of the preceding question about her understanding of the purchase.
The defendants did not characterize the answer as a formal admission. They argued that Bennett’s understanding was one part of the evidence relevant to whether she was an owner under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. The court said that determination would inform whether section 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act barred her tort claim arising from an October 20, 2021 road accident.
Bennett’s counsel acknowledged that the later evidence was better described as additional or explanatory evidence than a correction. Bennett argued that the vendor’s alleged misrepresentations rendered the purchase void from the outset. The defendants disputed her position; the court left those questions unresolved.
Justice Mew concluded that the original discovery answers remained part of the record. Both parties accepted that they could be considered alongside the subsequent affidavit. The affidavit did not replace those answers, and the meaning and weight of the evidence remained for the summary judgment motion.
Timing and prejudice considered
The judge applied the prompt-disclosure requirement contextually, noting that the communications answered a discovery undertaking and that the affidavit followed promptly when the defendants’ reliance on the ownership answer became apparent.
The judge found a reasonable explanation for the timing of the additional evidence, no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants and no undue delay. The defendants remained able to rely on the original answers and argue about the significance of the full record.
The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim on consent. It found formal leave to correct the discovery answers unnecessary, but granted leave in the alternative if required under rules 31.09(3) and 53.08(1).
Costs of the preliminary motion were left in the cause, to be determined after the summary judgment hearing.
