non-compensable prejudice, cannot trump the clear provisions of
the Insurance Act.
 There is little case law dealing with the issue raised on the
motion, only two of which I was made aware. Before discussing
what was decided in those cases, the pertinent rule is set out
 Rule 26.01 provides:
26.01 On motion at any stage of an action the court shall grant leave to
amend a pleading on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result
that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment.
 Notwithstanding the mandatory language of the rule,
there is no absolute right to an amendment. Aside from the issue
of prejudice, the court must be satisfied that the claim is tenable
at law. See, for example, Marks v. Ottawa (City),  O.J. No.
1445, 2011 ONCA 248.
 Section 138 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. C.43 provides that a multiplicity of proceedings is to be avoided,
as far as possible.
 Turning then to the two cases on point, the first chronologically is Lucas-Logan v. Certas Direct Insurance Co., 
O.J. No. 790, 2017 ONSC 828 (S.C.J.). In that case, the plaintiff
was in a car accident on March 16, 2013. She sought SABs. In
2014, she sought to mediate one claim for dental treatment, but
for unknown reasons a mediation never went ahead. On February
3, 2015, she commenced an action seeking payment for dental
treatment, property damages and damages for conspiracy and
mental distress. Certas defended, noting that the plaintiff could
not litigate claims that had not been mediated.
 In October, the plaintiff sought to mediate 15 additional
claims for SABs. The mediation failed. The mediator reported, in
total, 30 failed claims. On March 30, 2016, the plaintiff sought to
arbitrate the claims, but she subsequently withdrew her application. FSCO closed its file.
 The plaintiff then moved to amend her statement of claim
to include matters dealt with at the failed mediation, other disputed claims that were never mediated and for damages.
 At para. 19 of the decision, the motion judge noted that
“[t]o allow her to amend her original statement of claim to
include the failed issues from the March 2016 mediation would
effectively circumvent the effect of the amendment and the law
as it existed after April 1, 2016”. The motion was dismissed.