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
The Court of Appeal decision in The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. Dundee Kilmer Developments Limited Partnership follows Klassen for its statement on adding a claim after the expiry of the limitation period: [75] I accept this submission. The governing… Continue Reading
Cooper v. Toronto (City) follows Morrison v. Barzo for the principle that the court must answer the questions asked by s. 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Limitations Act. The court found that a Master’s failure to make these specific findings… Continue Reading
The Divisional Court decision in Rooplal v. Fodor holds that the Limitations Act’s discovery provisions determine discoverability, not common law principles. 16 years after the Limitations Act came into force, this is a point that still needs making. The motion… Continue Reading