Lewis v. Lifetime Developments

Lewis v. Lifetime Developments

The motion judge correctly found the appellant knew of the cause of action by February 23, 2012 (demand and counsel retained), there was no express bilateral tolling agreement under s.22, and there was no evidentiary basis under s.7 to conclude incapacity; the fresh psychodiagnostic evidence would not have altered the outcome, therefore the action was time-barred and summary judgment dismissing the action was properly granted.

Citation
2023 ONCA 388
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Oslyn Lewis; Defendant (respondent): Lifetime Developments; Defendant (respondent): Centre Court Developments; Defendant (respondent): Temperance Residences Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Action as Time Barred
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment affirmed; action dismissed as time-barred; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Limitation Period, Tolling Agreement, Incapacity Under Limitations Act S.7, Fresh Evidence, Commission Dispute, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Limitations Law Contract Real Property Summary Judgment Limitation Period Tolling Agreement Incapacity Under Limitations Act S.7 +3 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oslyn Lewis

Plaintiff (appellant)

Lifetime Developments

Defendant (respondent)

Centre Court Developments

Defendant (respondent)

Temperance Residences Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Action as Time Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action was barred by the two-year limitation period
  2. 2 Whether a tolling agreement under s.22 of the Limitations Act suspended the limitation period
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was incapable under s.7 of the Limitations Act such that the limitation period did not run

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge correctly found the appellant knew of the cause of action by February 23, 2012 (demand and counsel retained), there was no express bilateral tolling agreement under s.22, and there was no evidentiary basis under s.7 to conclude incapacity; the fresh psychodiagnostic evidence would not have altered the outcome, therefore the action was time-barred and summary judgment dismissing the action was properly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment affirmed; action dismissed as time-barred; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • Dismissal of appeal
  • Summary judgment granted for the respondents and action dismissed as time-barred