Nicholson v. McDougall is a reminder that the omission of a s. 5 analysis isn’t necessarily a ground for appeal:
[31] There is no reference to s. 5 at all, or any of its detailed requirements, in the Reasons for Decision. I agree with the respondent that this omission from the Reasons for Decision is not sufficient to grant this appeal. The Deputy Judge could have implicitly applied s. 5, including the presumption in s. 5(2), without expressly referring to it. To assess whether the Deputy Judge did so and therefore complied with the Limitations Act requirements, I begin with the law regarding s. 5(2) and then I will move to how it applies in this case.
