Hart v. Balice

Hart v. Balice

The motion judge properly dismissed the action because the appellant admitted awareness of the lien in 2009 making the claim time-barred and because the appellant produced no evidence that the alleged lien caused any damage or that the respondent benefited from it.

Citation
2018 ONCA 1065
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Melissa Hart; Appellant/plaintiff: Patricia Hart; Respondent/defendant: Victoria Balice
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissal at Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Statute of Limitations, Lien, Writ of Seizure and Sale, Causation of Damages
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Enforcement of Liens Limitations Summary Judgment Statute of Limitations Lien Writ of Seizure and Sale +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melissa Hart

Appellant/plaintiff

Patricia Hart

Appellant/plaintiff

Victoria Balice

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissal at Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim was statute-barred due to appellant's admission of awareness in 2009
  2. 2 Whether the appellant provided evidence that the alleged lien caused any damage
  3. 3 Whether there was any connection between the alleged lien and the sale of the property or any benefit to the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge properly dismissed the action because the appellant admitted awareness of the lien in 2009 making the claim time-barred and because the appellant produced no evidence that the alleged lien caused any damage or that the respondent benefited from it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent in the amount of $1,500 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes