{"id":610,"date":"2017-09-28T17:31:03","date_gmt":"2017-09-28T21:31:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=610"},"modified":"2017-09-28T17:31:03","modified_gmt":"2017-09-28T21:31:03","slug":"ontario-limitation-defences-and-r-21","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=610","title":{"rendered":"Ontario: limitation defences and r. 21"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Salewski v. Lalonde<\/em><\/a>, the Court of Appeal casts doubt on whether there is any circumstance where r. 21.01(1)(a) is appropriate for determining a limitations issue except where pleadings have closed and the facts are undisputed:<\/p>\n

\n

[<\/a>45]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0However, the basic limitation period established by the\u00a0Limitations Act, 2002<\/a><\/em>\u00a0is now premised on the discoverability rule. The discoverability rule raises issues of mixed fact and law:\u00a0Longo v. MacLaren Art Centre<\/em>,\u00a02014 ONCA 526<\/span>\u00a0(CanLII)<\/a>,\u00a0323 O.A.C. 246<\/span>, at para. 38<\/span>. We therefore question whether there is now any circumstance in which a limitation issue under the Act can properly be determined under\u00a0rule 21.01(1)<\/a>(a) unless pleadings are closed and it is clear the facts are undisputed. Absent such circumstances, we are sceptical that any proposed limitation defence under the Act will involve \u201ca question of law raised by a pleading\u201d as required under\u00a0rule 21.01(1)<\/a>(a).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Salewski v. Lalonde, the Court of Appeal casts doubt on whether there is any circumstance where r. 21.01(1)(a) is appropriate for determining a limitations issue except where pleadings have closed and the facts are undisputed: [45]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0However, the basic limitation period established by the\u00a0Limitations Act, 2002\u00a0is now premised on the discoverability rule. The discoverability … Continue reading Ontario: limitation defences and r. 21<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[190,192,43,365],"class_list":["post-610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontario","tag-civil-procedure","tag-creative-or-obnoxious-use-of-the-rules-of-civil-procedure","tag-ontario-court-of-appeal","tag-ontario-rules-of-civil-procedure-r-21-011a"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/610","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=610"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/610\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":611,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/610\/revisions\/611"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}