The decision in Saikely v. 519579 is a classic illustration of a situation in which an amendment was made to reflect the manifest intention of the court. Although the original judgment was a decision of Van Camp J., the motion to vary was heard by McKinnon J., which (as he noted at para 3) is perfectly appropriate since the test is a purely subjective one. It was obvious from the reasons delivered by Van Camp J. that she intended the amounts owing between two of the parties to be set off against each other, but no set-off was provided for in the judgment. In that situation, McKinnon J. amended the judgment to reflect the manifest intention of the trial judge.
"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.