Ontario: the codification of the discovery rule is not semantics (blog pedantry)

The decision in Loy-English v. Fournier requires some gentle criticism for its description of the limitations scheme: [40]           Before turning to the evidence, I will just mention that counsel for the intervenor provided me with a useful review… Continue Reading

Ontario: the limitation period in s. 51 of the SABS is not subject to discoverability

In Tomec v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, the Divisional Court held that the limitation period in s. 51 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule is not subject to common law discovery or the discovery provisions in s. 5 of the… Continue Reading

Ontario: a good “abilities and circumstances” s. 5(1)(b) analysis

Lewis v. Plaskos is noteworthy for its findings regarding the plaintiff’s abilities and circumstances for the purposes of a discovery analysis.  The court doesn’t often make these findings explicitly (though it should). The court found that plaintiff had the abilities… Continue Reading

Ontario: Court of Appeal says that the Limitations Act applies to claims, not causes of action

Justice Strathy’s decision in Apotex Inc. v. Nordion (Canada) Inc. is one of the most important limitations decisions from the Court of Appeal since the Limitations Act came into force.  It’s the first decision to make explicit that the Limitations… Continue Reading

Ontario: Court of Appeal on adverse possession and prescriptive easements

The Court of Appeal decision in Majewsky v. Veveris restates two real property principles: Adverse passion can be established with respect to lands registered under the Land Titles Act by possession meeting the necessary requirements during any continuous ten-year period… Continue Reading