Canadian Real Estate Association v. American Home Assurance Company
The appeal court held that striking the statement of claim under Rule 21.01 was erroneous because plaintiffs need not plead discoverability until a defendant pleads a limitation defence; accordingly the Beardsley exception is limited to uncomplicated cases, and the motion judge’s strike was set aside.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2015 ONCA 389
- Parties
- Plaintiff/respondent and Cross Appellant: Canadian Real Estate Association; Defendant: American Home Assurance Company; Defendant: Chartis Insurance Company of Canada; Defendant and Respondent: Chubb Insurance Company of Canada; Defendant: Continental Casualty Company; Defendant: Encon Group Inc.; Defendant: Temple Insurance Company; Defendant: XL Reinsurance American Inc.; Defendant: Lloyd’s Underwriters; Defendant: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s; Defendant and Appellant: Thomas Hanrahan; Defendant and Appellant: Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 June 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Order of Superior Court of Justice (motion to Strike Under Rule 21.01)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; order below set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Striking Pleadings Under Rule 21.01, Discoverability and Limitation Pleas, Beardsley Exception, Pleading Obligations
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Canadian Real Estate Association
Plaintiff/respondent and Cross Appellant
American Home Assurance Company
Defendant
Chartis Insurance Company of Canada
Defendant
Chubb Insurance Company of Canada
Defendant and Respondent
Continental Casualty Company
Defendant
Encon Group Inc.
Defendant
Temple Insurance Company
Defendant
XL Reinsurance American Inc.
Defendant
Lloyd’s Underwriters
Defendant
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s
Defendant
Thomas Hanrahan
Defendant and Appellant
Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP
Defendant and Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Order of Superior Court of Justice (motion to Strike Under Rule 21.01)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge erred in striking the statement of claim under Rule 21.01 because the limitation period had expired before a statement of defence and reply were delivered
- 2 Whether a plaintiff is required to plead discoverability absent a defendant pleading a limitation defence
- 3 What is the scope of the Beardsley v. Ontario Provincial Police exception
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal court held that striking the statement of claim under Rule 21.01 was erroneous because plaintiffs need not plead discoverability until a defendant pleads a limitation defence; accordingly the Beardsley exception is limited to uncomplicated cases, and the motion judge’s strike was set aside.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; order below set aside.
Orders
- Order below set aside.
- Costs of the appeal payable by the respondent to the appellants and cross-appellant in the amount of $5,000 in total on a partial indemnity basis inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canadian Real Estate Association v. American Home Assurance Company Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2015-06-08 Neutral citation 2015 ONCA 389 Docket numbers C59889 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Epstein, Gloria Jean; Pardu, Gladys I. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Canadian Real Estate Association v. American Home Assurance Company, 2015 ONCA 389 DATE: 20150529 DOCKET: C59889 Simmons, Epstein and Pardu JJ.A. BETWEEN The Canadian Real Estate Association Plaintiff/Respondent Appellant by Cross-Appeal and American Home Assurance Company, Chartis Insurance Company of Canada Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, Continental Casualty Company, Encon Group Inc., Temple Insurance Company, XL Reinsurance American Inc. Lloyd’s Underwriters, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, Thomas Hanrahan and Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP Defendants (Appellants, Thomas Hanrahan and Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP) (Respondent: Chubb Insurance Company of Canada) William G. Scott, for the appellants, Thomas Hanrahan and Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP Simon Bieber and Adrienne Lipsey, for the respondent Chubb Insurance Company of Canada Peter Hagen, for the cross-appellant, Canadian Real Estate Association Heard: May 25, 2015 On appeal from the order of Justice E.P. Belobaba of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 19, 2014. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We agree that the motion judge erred in striking the statement of claim under rule 21.01 based on expiry of the limitation period prior to a statement of defense and reply being delivered. A plaintiff is under no obligation to plead matters relating to discoverability until a statement of defense pleading a limitation period is delivered: Collins v. Cortez, 2014 ONCA 685. [2] In our view, the exception in Beardsley v. Ontario Provincial Police (2001), 57 O.R. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.) must be confined to cases that involve no legal or factual complexities. [3] The appeal is allowed and the order below is set aside. [4] Costs of the appeal are payable by the respondent to the appellants and cross-appellant in the amount of $5,000 in total on a partial indemnity basis inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes. Costs of the motion below are payable by the respondent to the cross-appellant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes and $2,000 to the appellants inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.