Hydroclave Systems Corp. v. Gammon

Hydroclave Systems Corp. v. Gammon

The motion judge's findings that the respondent neither knew nor ought to have known that its loss was caused or contributed to by the appellants were supported by the record and not affected by palpable and overriding error, and therefore the action is not statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, so the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
2020 ONCA 147
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Hydroclave Systems Corp.; Defendant (appellant): Stephen Gammon; Defendant (appellant): Secker Ross & Perry LLP
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge's Summary Judgment Decision (superior Court of Justice) Concerning Limitations Under the Limitations Act, 2002
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Limitations, Discoverability, Statute Barred, Causation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Administrative Law Summary Judgment Limitations Discoverability Statute Barred Causation

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

Parties

Hydroclave Systems Corp.

Plaintiff (respondent)

Stephen Gammon

Defendant (appellant)

Secker Ross & Perry LLP

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge's Summary Judgment Decision (superior Court of Justice) Concerning Limitations Under the Limitations Act, 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge conflated ss.5(1)(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002
  3. 3 Whether the respondent knew or ought to have known that its loss was caused or contributed to by the appellant's acts or omissions

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge's findings that the respondent neither knew nor ought to have known that its loss was caused or contributed to by the appellants were supported by the record and not affected by palpable and overriding error, and therefore the action is not statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $20,377 inclusive of disbursements plus HST