The Court of Appeal decision in Albert Bloom Limited v. London Transit Commission contains a great statement on the factual nature of the s. 5(1)(a) analysis. When a claimant knows the s. 5(1)(a) discovery matters is fact-specific and there’s little… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal decision in Malik v. Nikbakht summarises the limitation of FLA actions. Because they are derivative, the limitation period that applies to the injured person’s action also applies to the dependant’s action: [9] In my view,… Continue Reading
In Fram Elgin Mills 90 Inc. V Romandale Farms Limited, the Court of Appeal summarised the limitation of anticipatory breach actions: [258] An anticipatory breach of contract occurs when one party to a contract, by express language or conduct, or as… Continue Reading
The Superior Court decision in Wood v. David Mitchell et al. makes two points relevant to s. 7 analyses. First, a lawyer’s observations and views about a person’s capacity can be factors in a s. 7 analysis: [23] Several months… Continue Reading
The Superior Court decision in Taylor v. Mayes is an addition to the burgeoning category of decisions in motions to add maintenance contractors after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period. The party opposing being added in Taylor made the standard argument:… Continue Reading
In Billimoria v. Mistry, the court founds that Real Property Limitation Act‘s adverse possession provisions apply to situations of co-ownership. One co-owner may claim under the RPLA that another co-owner has been dispossessed of the property and is precluded… Continue Reading
The Superior Court decision in Maisonneuve v. Clark makes two findings about the limitation of arbitral proceedings. First, when a party applies for an order referring a dispute to arbitration, the court has the jurisdiction to determine the timeliness of the… Continue Reading
The Superior Court decision in Psaila v. Kapsalis and City of Toronto contains a useful summary of the principles for the application of municipal notice provisions: [32] Subsections 42(6) and 42(8) of the Act set out the statutory framework for purposes of… Continue Reading
In In re: John Trevor Eyton, Master Mills held that a statute-barred debt is unenforceable at law and is therefore unprovable in bankruptcy: [11] A debt which is statute barred is unenforceable at law and therefore may not… Continue Reading
Sirotek v. O’Dea contains terrifically clear guidance from the Divisional Court on the potential outcomes of an amendment motion opposed on the basis of a limitations defence. The key point is that when the court grants leave to amend because the… Continue Reading