MacMillan v. McDermid

MacMillan v. McDermid

The appeal is allowed because summary judgment was improperly granted where the discoverability rule was central and material facts were in dispute; additionally, the trial judge did not address the fiduciary duty claim, which is not subject to RHPA limitation for malpractice in professional services.

Citation
C40694
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Douglas MacMillan; Defendant/respondent: Brian J. McDermid
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal; Motion for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Discoverability Rule, Limitation Periods, Fiduciary Duty, RHPA Limitation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Professional Negligence Summary Judgment Discoverability Rule Limitation Periods Fiduciary Duty +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas MacMillan

Plaintiff/appellant

Brian J. McDermid

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal; Motion for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate where the discoverability rule is central to limitation issues
  2. 2 Whether material facts were in dispute such that a trial was required
  3. 3 Whether a fiduciary duty claim is subject to limitation under the RHPA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because summary judgment was improperly granted where the discoverability rule was central and material facts were in dispute; additionally, the trial judge did not address the fiduciary duty claim, which is not subject to RHPA limitation for malpractice in professional services.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Summary judgment set aside