Butera v. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

Butera v. Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

The Court concluded the motion judge properly determined, on the record, that the claimant knew or ought to have known the basis of the claim by April 11, 2005, and because the action was commenced more than two years later it was statute-barred; the appeal was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 ONCA 99
Parties
Appellant: Luciano Butera; Appellant: 1515404 Ontario Inc. operating as Niagara Mitsubishi; Appellant: Canterra Property Holdings Inc.; Respondent: Mitsubishi Motors Corporation; Respondent: Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America Inc.; Respondent: Mitsubishi Motors North America Inc.; Respondent: Mitsubishi Motors Credit America Inc.; Respondent: Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Decision at Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Discoverability, Statute Barred, Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Limitations Limitation Period Discoverability Statute Barred Costs

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luciano Butera

Appellant

1515404 Ontario Inc. operating as Niagara Mitsubishi

Appellant

Canterra Property Holdings Inc.

Appellant

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation

Respondent

Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America Inc.

Respondent

Mitsubishi Motors North America Inc.

Respondent

Mitsubishi Motors Credit America Inc.

Respondent

Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Decision at Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the action was statute-barred under the limitation/discoverability rule
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge had sufficient record to determine when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the basis of his claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded the motion judge properly determined, on the record, that the claimant knew or ought to have known the basis of the claim by April 11, 2005, and because the action was commenced more than two years later it was statute-barred; the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Action found to be statute-barred due to expiry of the limitation period