In Howell v Jatheeskumar, Justice LeMay provides a helpful summary of the possible outcomes of an opposed motion to add a party to an action after the expiry of the presumptive limitation period:
[35] When these cases are read together, it becomes clear that there are three possible outcomes to a motion such as this one. First, the Court could determine that there was insufficient due diligence on the part of the Plaintiff and her counsel, and that there was no other to extend the time limits, thereby defeating any claim that the Plaintiff may have to extend the time limits as a result of the principles of discoverability. Second, the Court could determine that there was a triable issue about the issues of discovery and whether the claim was timely as a result of the application of those principles. This triable issue could include any question of whether there was any other Act by or under which the limitations period could be extended. Finally, the Court could determine on the materials filed that there was clearly an issue of discoverability that made the claim timely.
In other news, expect quite a few updates in the coming days as we make up for a our lack of diligence in February and March.
