In Scicluna v. Solstice Two Limited, the Court of Appeal reminds us that an application to recover monies advanced in a real estate purchase is subject to the Real Property Limitations Act: [25] Although the application judge should have responded… Continue Reading
The limitation period in s. 39(2) of the Federal Courts Act applies when a cause of action arises otherwise than in a province: (2) A proceeding in the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court in respect of a cause… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Alguire v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company is noteworthy for the following points: It affirms that a request for rectification is a “claim” within the meaning of the Limitations Act: [26] In my view,… Continue Reading
The plaintiffs in Galanis v. Kingston General Hospital commenced a proceeding by notice of action within the limitation period, and served the statement of claim outside the limitation period. When the plaintiffs sought to add defendants on the basis of… Continue Reading
The decision in Laurent-Hippolyte v. Blasse et al. is a reminder that on a motion to add a party after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period, the plaintiff needs to file evidence of due diligence: [21] TWD… Continue Reading
The decision in Canada v. Stasiuk includes a rare consideration of the limitation periods in s. 16.1 of Canada Student Financial Assistance Act for actions to recover money owing under a student loan. Do with this as you will.
When the success of an appeal in a related but separate proceeding (involving the same defendants) will eliminate damage, is a proceeding to remedy that damage inappropriate until the appeal’s determination? No, held the Court of Appeal in Tapak v.… Continue Reading
Jane Doe v. Weinstein considers the scope of s. 16(h) and (h.1) of the Limitations Act, which provides that there is no limitation period in respect of a proceeding based on a sexual assault, and misconduct of a sexual nature:… Continue Reading
An issue in Torres v. Export Packers was whether the Limitations Act or the Human Rights code applies to a human rights claim in a civil action. It arose in the context of a motion to strike paragraphs from a… Continue Reading
The decision in Corp. of Township of North Shore v. Grant has a helpful summary of misnomer principles: [18] Nonetheless, motions to correct misnomer or misdescription are still permitted pursuant to s. 21 of the Limitations Act, 2002, which provides:… Continue Reading