In Pryers Construction Ltd. v. MVMB Holdings Inc., the Divisional Court holds that the special circumstances doctrine is not available to a plaintiff in an action to enforce a construction lien. [14] In the present case, Riverside was… Continue Reading
The Superior Court decision in Scalabrini v. Khan holds that the test for adding a plaintiff to a proceeding after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period is the same as adding a defendant: [8] The… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Rumsam v. Pakes overturned the motion judge’s order granting the plaintiff leave to add a doctor as a defendant to the proceeding. The doctor had opposed the motion on the basis of an expired… Continue Reading
Clarke v. Sunlife is a reminder that for a denial of coverage to commence a limitation period, it needs to be clear and unambiguous: [23] It is not clear that the words used by the Sun Life letter… Continue Reading
University Plumbing v. Solstice Two Limited contains a reasonably uncommon discussion of s. 13 acknowledgment principles: [15] The last payment made by Solstice to the Plaintiff was on September 5, 2012. There is written acknowledgment of the debt… Continue Reading
The decision in Markplan Inc. et al. v. Osman et al. provides a helpful discussion of what is necessary to make a tolling agreement enforceable: [10] It is asserted that there was a tolling agreement between the parties.… Continue Reading
The decision in McCarthy v. 2065943 Ontario Ltd. provides a good summary of the principles applicable to the notice requirement in s. 7 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act: 18. The legislation in s. 7(1) offers a… Continue Reading
Two aspects of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ridel v. Goldberg are noteworthy. First, the court held that a contribution and indemnity proceeding does not become an appropriate remedy for a loss only when the main action resolves. Section… Continue Reading
In Service Mold + Aerospace Inc. v. Khalaf, the Court of Appeal confronted the question of whose knowledge informs the s. 5 analysis when the plaintiff is a corporation, but without answering it. This was the second time in 2019… Continue Reading
In Steele Industrial Supplies Inc. v. Elliott, the Superior Court found that an employer who knows that it has been defrauded by an employee, and has called the police in regards of that fraud, doesn’t necessarily know that a proceeding… Continue Reading