{"id":614,"date":"2017-09-28T17:35:58","date_gmt":"2017-09-28T21:35:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=614"},"modified":"2018-07-04T18:06:32","modified_gmt":"2018-07-04T22:06:32","slug":"ontario-briefly-the-principles-of-s-51aiv","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=614","title":{"rendered":"Ontario: Briefly, the principles of s. 5(1)(a)(iv)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/h4k1d\" target=\"_blank\"><em>Velgakis v. Servinis<\/em><\/a>, the Court of Appeal conveniently reduced the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ontario.ca\/laws\/statute\/02l24#BK6\" target=\"_blank\">s. 5(1)(a)(iv)<\/a> discovery principles in <em><a href=\"http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/h3cp2\" target=\"_blank\">Presidential<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>to two points:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[<a class=\"paragAnchor\" name=\"par6\"><\/a>6]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In\u00a0<em>Presidential MSH<\/em>, at paras. 17-20, this court clarified certain principles governing cases such as the one before us on the issue of discoverability:<\/p>\n<p class=\"CQuote\">1. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 A legal proceeding against an expert professional may not be appropriate if the claim arose out of the professional\u2019s alleged wrongdoing but may be resolved by the professional himself or herself without recourse to the courts, rendering the proceeding unnecessary.<\/p>\n<p class=\"CQuote\">2. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 The defendant\u2019s ameliorative efforts and the plaintiff\u2019s reasonable reliance on such efforts to remedy its loss are what may render the proceeding premature. The plaintiff and defendant must have engaged in good faith efforts to right the wrong it caused.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Furthering the interested of brevity, in <a href=\"http:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/h4m1z\" target=\"_blank\"><em>Tracy v. Iran (Information and Security)<\/em><\/a>, <em>\u00a0<\/em>the Court reduced the purpose of that provision to a sentence 2017 ONCA 549:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p class=\"AParaNumbering\"><span class=\"Prompt\">[<a class=\"paragAnchor\" name=\"par79\"><\/a>79]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"Prompt\">The purpose of the appropriateness criterion in\u00a0<\/span><a class=\"reflex2-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/on\/laws\/stat\/so-2002-c-24-sch-b\/latest\/so-2002-c-24-sch-b.html#sec5subsec1_smooth\"><span class=\"Prompt\">s.\u00a0<\/span>5(1)<\/a>(iv) of the\u00a0<em><a class=\"reflex2-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/on\/laws\/stat\/so-2002-c-24-sch-b\/latest\/so-2002-c-24-sch-b.html\">Limitations Act, 2002<\/a><\/em>\u00a0is to deter needless litigation:\u00a0<em>Presidential MSH Corp. v. Marr, Foster &amp; Co. LLP<\/em>,\u00a0<span class=\"reflex3-block\"><a class=\"reflex3-caselaw\" href=\"https:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/on\/onca\/doc\/2017\/2017onca325\/2017onca325.html\"><span class=\"reflex3-alt\">2017 ONCA 325<\/span>\u00a0(CanLII)<\/a>, at para. 17<\/span>. Given that a stay of the respondents\u2019 proceedings on the U.S. judgments would be inevitable if they were brought at common law, it would have been fruitless to commence them before 2012 when the\u00a0<em>JVTA<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0<em><a class=\"reflex2-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/ca\/laws\/stat\/rsc-1985-c-s-18\/latest\/rsc-1985-c-s-18.html\">SIA<\/a><\/em>\u00a0carved out an exception to Iran\u2019s immunity. They were therefore not appropriate or discoverable before 2012.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Velgakis v. Servinis, the Court of Appeal conveniently reduced the s. 5(1)(a)(iv) discovery principles in Presidential\u00a0to two points: [6]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In\u00a0Presidential MSH, at paras. 17-20, this court clarified certain principles governing cases such as the one before us on the issue of discoverability: 1. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 A legal proceeding against an expert professional may &hellip; <a href=\"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=614\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Ontario: Briefly, the principles of s. 5(1)(a)(iv)<\/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":[366,45,43],"class_list":["post-614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontario","tag-laudable-brevity","tag-ontario-act-s-51aiv","tag-ontario-court-of-appeal"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/614","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=614"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/614\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":795,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/614\/revisions\/795"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}