In Piekut v. Romoli, the Court of Appeal held that no limitation period applies to an application for a declaration on the validity of a codicil. The motion judge held that such an application is a proceeding for a declaration… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Clarke v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is another addition to the jurisprudence considering when time runs for a benefits denial claim. It delineates the extent to which a denial must be unequivocal… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal decision in Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc. v. Vector (Georgetown) Limited summarises the principles of the limitation of claims arising from the anticipatory repudiation of a contract: [29] Anticipatory repudiation occurs when a contracting party, “by… Continue Reading
Is the limitation period in (the repealed) s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act and s. 51(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule subject to discoverability? Yes, held the Court of Appeal in Tomec v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company. Section 51(1)… Continue Reading
Will a third party claim become an appropriate remedy within the meaning of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) only once the court has determined the forum for the main action? No, held the Court of Appeal in Lilydale Cooperative Limited v. Meyn Canada… Continue Reading
In R.G. v. The Hospital for Sick Children, the court held that after the dismissal of a motion to certify an action as a class proceeding, the limitation period applicable to the plaintiff’s claim remains suspended until the occurrence of… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal decision Sosnowksi v. MacEwan Petroleum provides a useful summary of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) jurisprudence: [15] This court’s jurisprudence has developed certain principles for the interpretation and application of s. 5(1)(a)(iv). [16] First, the determination of whether a… Continue Reading
In Hilson v. 1336365 Alberta Ltd., the Court of Appeal confirmed that the ten-year limitation period in s. 43(1) of the RPLA applies to a stand-alone mortgage guarantee. The respondents argued that s. 43(1) should be read narrowly to deal only… Continue Reading
The Superior Court decision in 1365 California Ltd. v. Moss Property Management Inc. is an appeal from a master’s decision granting leave to add a proposed defendant. It provides two important reminders: a lawyer’s affidavit is a lousy way of… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal decision in Zhao v. Li considers the limitation of continuing oppressive conduct. It holds sensibly that discrete oppressive acts give rise to discrete claims (subject to discrete limitation periods): [28] Maurice stands for the proposition that where… Continue Reading