Ridel v. Goldberg

Ridel v. Goldberg

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the motion judge's order because the limitation issue could not properly be decided on a Rule 21.01(1)(a) motion based on pleadings alone given disputed factual issues about e3m's relationship with Goldberg and the applicability of s.5(1)(a)(iv); the limitation issue must be determined on a fuller factual record in the ordinary course.

Citation
2017 ONCA 739
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Jean-Marc Ridel; Plaintiff/appellant: Nadine Suzanne Josephine Ridel; Plaintiff/appellant: Marc H. Ridel; Defendant/respondent: Robert Goldberg
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Rule 21.01(1)(a) Motion on Limitation Issue
Outcome
Appeal allowed; motion judge's order set aside; limitation issue remitted for determination on proper factual basis by the trial court; costs of the motion and appeal left to the trial judge's discretion (parties agreed $10,000).
Legal Topics
Discoverability, Limitations Period, Limitations Act 2002 S.5(1) and S.12(1), Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act S.38 (assignment), Rule 21.01(1)(a) Motion Practice
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Limitations Bankruptcy and Insolvency Tort Law Fiduciary Duty Discoverability Limitations Period Limitations Act 2002 S.5(1) and S.12(1) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean-Marc Ridel

Plaintiff/appellant

Nadine Suzanne Josephine Ridel

Plaintiff/appellant

Marc H. Ridel

Plaintiff/appellant

Robert Goldberg

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Rule 21.01(1)(a) Motion on Limitation Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action is statute-barred by the two-year limitation period
  2. 2 Whether discoverability under s.5(1)(a)(iv) delayed limitation until after appeal or bankruptcy
  3. 3 Effect of predecessor knowledge under s.12(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the motion judge's order because the limitation issue could not properly be decided on a Rule 21.01(1)(a) motion based on pleadings alone given disputed factual issues about e3m's relationship with Goldberg and the applicability of s.5(1)(a)(iv); the limitation issue must be determined on a fuller factual record in the ordinary course.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; motion judge's order set aside; limitation issue remitted for determination on proper factual basis by the trial court; costs of the motion and appeal left to the trial judge's discretion (parties agreed $10,000).

Orders

  • Set aside order of the motion judge dated February 28, 2017
  • Remit limitation/discoverability issue to trial court for determination on a full factual record