Murray v. Morrisey

Murray v. Morrisey

The limitation period for Morrisey's claim against Murray had expired despite the discoverability argument; the prerequisites of s.22(b) were not met because Murray lacked sufficient knowledge of being a target such that he would not be prejudiced; CPR 83.11 does not provide residual discretion to override the limitation bar; therefore the statute-barred claim has no real prospect of success and must be struck on summary judgment.

Citation
2024 NSSC 44
Parties
Moving Party (defendant): Tyler Murray; Respondent (plaintiff): Matthew Morrisey
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Civil Action Motion for Summary Judgment on Evidence / Decision on Summary Judgment Motion
Outcome
Motion granted; amended pleading adding Tyler Murray as a defendant struck as statute-barred
Legal Topics
Discoverability, Limitation Periods, Amendment to Add Defendant, Section 22 Limitation of Actions Act, Civil Procedure Rules 13.04, 83.11
Source Language
English
Limitation of Actions Civil Procedure Tort Personal Injury Joinder and Amendment of Parties Discoverability Limitation Periods Amendment to Add Defendant Section 22 Limitation of Actions Act +1 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tyler Murray

Moving Party (defendant)

Matthew Morrisey

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Civil Action Motion for Summary Judgment on Evidence / Decision on Summary Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Has the limitation period for the claim by Morrisey against Murray expired under s.8 LAA and the discoverability principle?
  2. 2 If expired, does s.22(b) of the Limitation of Actions Act permit adding Murray as a defendant notwithstanding expiry?
  3. 3 Does the Court retain residual discretion under Civil Procedure Rule 83.11 to permit the addition of Murray after expiry?

Ratio Decidendi

The limitation period for Morrisey's claim against Murray had expired despite the discoverability argument; the prerequisites of s.22(b) were not met because Murray lacked sufficient knowledge of being a target such that he would not be prejudiced; CPR 83.11 does not provide residual discretion to override the limitation bar; therefore the statute-barred claim has no real prospect of success and must be struck on summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; amended pleading adding Tyler Murray as a defendant struck as statute-barred

Orders

  • The attempted addition of Tyler Murray as a defendant is struck.
  • Moving Party to produce the order.