Bennett v. J.K. (Jim) Moore Ltd. (Jim Moore Petroleum)

Bennett v. J.K. (Jim) Moore Ltd. (Jim Moore Petroleum)

The appeal was dismissed because unchallenged evidence established the appellant had sufficient knowledge by at least July 2010 such that the limitation period under s.5(1)(b) began to run then, rendering the April 2014 motion to add the McComiskeys statute-barred.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2015 ONCA 217
Parties
Appellant: Eliza Bennett; Defendant: J.K. (Jim) Moore Ltd. (c.o.b. Jim Moore Petroleum); Defendant: Steve Haglund; Defendant: John Doe; Defendant: John Doe Incorporated; Defendant: Aultman's Heating Ltd.; Defendant: Chris Heasman; Defendant: Bechtel's Home Heat; Defendant: Terry Allan Bechtel; Respondent on Motion: David McComiskey; Respondent on Motion: Monika McComiskey
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Motion Judge Refusing to Add Defendants (motion to Amend Statement of Claim)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; motion to add the McComiskeys denied as statute-barred.
Legal Topics
Limitations Act, Adding Parties, Negligence, Statute Barred
Source Language
en
Civil Tort Civil Procedure Limitations Limitations Act Adding Parties Negligence Statute Barred

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eliza Bennett

Appellant

J.K. (Jim) Moore Ltd. (c.o.b. Jim Moore Petroleum)

Defendant

Steve Haglund

Defendant

John Doe

Defendant

John Doe Incorporated

Defendant

Aultman's Heating Ltd.

Defendant

Chris Heasman

Defendant

Bechtel's Home Heat

Defendant

Terry Allan Bechtel

Defendant

David McComiskey

Respondent on Motion

Monika McComiskey

Respondent on Motion

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Motion Judge Refusing to Add Defendants (motion to Amend Statement of Claim)

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amendment to add the McComiskeys as defendants is barred by the limitation period
  2. 2 When the limitation period under s.5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act began to run
  3. 3 Whether facts relied on to found a negligence claim were discovered only at discovery in May 2013 or were known earlier

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because unchallenged evidence established the appellant had sufficient knowledge by at least July 2010 such that the limitation period under s.5(1)(b) began to run then, rendering the April 2014 motion to add the McComiskeys statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; motion to add the McComiskeys denied as statute-barred.

Orders

  • Motion to add the McComiskeys as defendants denied as statute-barred
  • Costs to respondents fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes