British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Glover v. Leakey, 2016 BCSC 1624 (CanLII):
In Halagan v. Reifel, 1997 CarswellBC 4040, Madam Justice Satanove considered an application to amend pleadings. She refused to do so and dismissed the application because the proposed amendments were inconsistent. She found they constituted approbation and reprobation. At para. 8 she stated: … [N]either pleadings nor any other of the court processes are a game to be played according to what appears to be a strategic advantage of the time. The court expects a party to take a position which is consistent with its evidence and to maintain that position in its dealings with the court. In other words, saying something to one judge and saying the opposite to another will not be countenanced.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.