In Vellenga v. Boersma, the Court of Appeal provides a reminder that you raise a limitations defence for the first time on appeal at your peril: [41] Finally, the appellants argue that Mr. Vellenga’s claim was statute-barred under s. 4 of the Real… Continue Reading
Vu v. Attorney General of Canada considers the limitation of a claim arising from false arrest and imprisonment, and in particular the impact of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act on the analysis: [30] Not surprisingly, the defendant takes… Continue Reading
Ontario courts are filled with pro forma and ill-conceived limitations defences. Sometimes these stand out, particularly when advanced by institutions that maybe shouldn’t be too creative with limitations defences. Take Sun v. Ferreira as an example. The Plaintiffs claimed that the… Continue Reading
When considering whether an amendment raises a fundamentally new claim and is therefore statute-barred, the court must read the pleading generously. The decision in Virji v. Kotton is an example of what this generosity looks like. The court “teased out”… Continue Reading
Kinectrics Inc. v. FCL Fisker Custome & Logistics Inc. contains the clearest statement of the principle that different claims are subject to different limitations analyses even when they arise out of similar circumstances: [78] […] Different… Continue Reading
Ali v. City of Toronto is a good example of an issue with the law of adding a party to a proceeding after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period. The Court held that there are circumstances where a plaintiff… Continue Reading
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