In J.K. v. The Korea Times & Hankookilbo Ltd. (The Korea Times Daily), the Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff will satisfy the notice provision in section 5(1) the Libel and Slander Act by giving notice which conveys the essence of… Continue Reading
Justice Akhtar’s decision in Sorita v. TTC provides a helpful summary of the interaction between the Limitations Act and the statutory threshold in s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act: [26] As noted earlier, Ontario’s restriction on motor vehicle accident… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal has upheld Justice Mew’s decision in Brown v. Baum. I wrote about it here. Justice Mew found that section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act delayed the commencement of the limitation period for a medical malpractice claim… Continue Reading
In Machaj v. RBC General Insurance Company, the Court of Appeal adopted the Divisional Court decision in Do v. Guarantee Insurance Co., which stands for the proposition that the limitation period applies only to claims for specific benefits and not… Continue Reading
Justice Tranmer’s decision in Valco v. Imperial Oil is a good and somewhat uncommon example of a limitations analysis in an oil spill claim.
Lausen v. Silverman is a well-reasoned decision from the Court of Appeal considering the discovery of a solicitor’s negligence claim. The plaintiff was injured in a car accident. She consulted the defendant solicitor, who commenced an action on her behalf against the other… Continue Reading
Noble v. North Halton Golf and Country Club is noteworthy because it’s the first decision to apply the Court of Appeal analysis in Maurice v. Alles to a claim for continuing oppression. It will also interest people curious about the… Continue Reading
Justice Perell’s decision in Pennyfeather v. Timminco Limited considers a order nunc pro tunc in the context of a securities misrepresentation class action. It’s the first case to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Green to a plaintiff’s request for an order granting… Continue Reading
In Maurice v. Alles, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a claimant must commence an oppression remedy claim within two years of the discovery of the claim. Conduct that is in furtherance of, or based on, earlier oppressive conduct is… Continue Reading
Justice Parfett’s decision in Fernandes v. Goveas is a textbook example of applying the modified objective test in a discovery analysis. Section 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act contains the test. This provision asks when a reasonable person (the objective component) with… Continue Reading