<\/p>\n
The Divisional Court\u2019s decision in Barrs v. Trapeze Capital Corp<\/em>.<\/a> is a reminder that when the court denies a summary judgment motion on a limitations defence, the order isn\u2019t determinative of the limitations defence absent explicit language to that effect:<\/p>\n [<\/a>36]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0And in\u00a0Skunk<\/i>, at para. 60, the Court of Appeal stated that in the absence of an express indication by the motion judge that his or her determination is to be binding on the parties at trial, it should be presumed that in expressing a conclusion on a point of law when dismissing a summary judgment motion she is simply explaining why she concluded that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, and did not intend her determination to be binding on the parties.<\/p>\n [<\/a>37]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Our reading of the reasons of the motions judge leaves us uncertain about whether he intended to make final and binding findings of fact and conclusions on the legal consequences of those facts. The parties evidently see things the same way, having pursued an appeal route applicable to interlocutory rather than final orders.<\/p>\n [<\/a>38]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Given the absence of an express determination of this issue, we are of the view that the motion judge did not intend his conclusions to be binding on the parties.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n A party that wants the limitations defence determined should ask the court to do so explicitly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Divisional Court\u2019s decision in Barrs v. Trapeze Capital Corp. is a reminder that when the court denies a summary judgment motion on a limitations defence, the order isn\u2019t determinative of the limitations defence absent explicit language to that effect: [36]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0And in\u00a0Skunk, at para. 60, the Court of Appeal stated that … Continue reading Ontario: the denial of summary judgment on a limitations defence isn’t necessarily determinative of the defence<\/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":[298,59,542],"class_list":["post-910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontario","tag-procedure","tag-summary-judgment","tag-things-that-arent-necessarily-intuitive"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/910","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=910"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/910\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":911,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/910\/revisions\/911"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}