Restoule v. Canada (Attorney General) is a wonderful decision for anyone who, like me, has the misfortune of being steeped (too long) in limitations law. It considers whether the Former Act applied to a claim for the breach of a… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal decision in Michel v. Spirit Financial Inc. includes the following paragraph that compels me to pedantry: [14] The trial judge made a finding of fact that all the advances made by Michel to Kramer and Spirit… Continue Reading
I often see defendants argue that if a plaintiff had undertaken a certain step, discovery would have occurred on an earlier date. Without evidence that the plaintiff taking this step on a specific date would have resulted in the plaintiff… Continue Reading
Francis v. Ontario is a remainder that giving notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (now replaced by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, which has similar notice requirements in s. 18) doesn’t toll the limitation period: [273] … Continue Reading
Sarokin v. Zhang has a comprehensive summary of the limitation of uninsured motorist proceedings. It’s a good resource if you practice in the area: [28] Section 265 (1) of the Insurance Act (Ontario) sets out the mandatory provisions for uninsured… Continue Reading
Reimer v. Toronto (City) is an example of failing to make out the litigation finger test. The plaintiff in a slip and fall action named “John Doe Maintenance Company” as a defendant and sought leave to correct it to the… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal decision in Beniuk v. Leamington (Municipality) is an important addition to s. 5(1)(a)(iv) appropriateness jurisprudence. It has become popular to argue that an alternative dispute resolution process with a clear and identifiable conclusion delays the appropriateness of… Continue Reading
In Sora et al. v. Emerson Electrical Co. et al., the court reminds us that entitlement to misnomer relief doesn’t require establishing, as is sometimes argued, that the plaintiff intended to name the correct party and that the correct party… Continue Reading
In Brazeau v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court of Appeal held that a claim for damages arising from the adoption and maintenance of a federal regulatory policy regime that applies in all provinces arises “otherwise than in a province” and is therefore… Continue Reading
In 3113736 Canada Ltd. v. Cozy Corner Bedding Inc., the Court of Appeal explains why an equitable set-off is not subject to limitation: [37] I would not give effect to this argument. Although equitable set-off is a defence, it is… Continue Reading