Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
4 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Limitation of actions 2026 NSSC 125

Watt v. SDLP Land Holdings Limited

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Claims against both proposed defendants were presumptively statute‑barred; McDonald’s claim could not be saved under s.22(b) because plaintiff had constructive knowledge (at latest by the incident and certainly by 2020) before the limitation-plus‑service period elapsed and McDonald’s lacked timely notice of the legal claim; Jus‑Mar could be added because it had sufficient knowledge of the claim within the relevant period and the responding party did not prove non‑compensable prejudice that would defeat relief under s.22(b).

Source excerpt

  • Discoverability
  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Section 22 limitation of actions act
  • Prejudice in limitation context
  • Designation of managers
Read case analysis
Civil procedure 2026 NSSC 93

Isaah v. Snair

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Under Rule 4.04 a judge may grant a renewal beyond the 14 month window if the plaintiff satisfies either subsection (6)(a) or (6)(b); applying that test here the court found reasonable efforts at personal service had been made and the plaintiff would seek substituted service, inadvertence by successive counsel caused expiry, the plaintiff would suffer serious prejudice if the action terminated, and the defendants failed to demonstrate serious non-compensable prejudice, therefore a further renewal was warranted and granted for seven months.

Source excerpt

  • Renewal of notice of action
  • Service of process
  • Substituted service
  • Inadvertence
  • Prejudice
Read case analysis
Limitation of actions 2026 NSSC 143

I.C. Property Management Solutions Inc. v. Horodyski

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Adjudicator correctly applied s.8(2)(d) by finding discoverability was delayed until late October 2023 because the claimant reasonably relied on the defendant's superior roofing expertise and ongoing remedial efforts and only when the defendant ceased communications and services and the roof deterioration became 'significant' did the claim become sufficiently serious to warrant proceedings; accordingly the action filed in April 2025 was within the two-year limitation period and the appeal fails.

Source excerpt

  • Discoverability
  • Limitation periods
  • S.8(2)(d) of limitation of actions act
  • Standard of review on appeal
Read case analysis
Family law 2026 BCSC 445

Scott v. Scott

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The October 23, 2003 correspondence from deceased's counsel objectively admitted some liability and thereby confirmed the cause of action under s.5 of the 1996 Limitation Act for amounts not yet statute-barred; this restarted the limitation period for the youngest child (Kaurie) and, because the 2012 Limitation Act later exempted child support arrears from limitation, Kaurie's portion of the lump sum ($1,000) and periodic arrears totaling $6,529.95 remain enforceable with interest; the original $6,000 lump sum is apportionable equally among the five entitled persons at $1,000 each and claims…

Source excerpt

  • Child support arrears
  • Statute of limitations
  • Confirmation of debt
  • Apportionment of arrears
  • Costs indemnity
Read case analysis
Civil procedure 2026 BCCA 88

Rahman v. Windermere Valley Property Management Ltd.

Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal

Security for costs was ordered because the appeal was weak, the appellant failed to provide objective evidence of impecuniosity, prior unpaid costs created a real risk that costs would not be recoverable, and the application was timely; result: $6,500 security for the appeal and $3,500 for the fixed costs award (total $10,000) to be posted within 30 days, with the appeal stayed pending posting and security for trial costs adjourned until assessment.

Source excerpt

  • Security for costs
  • Summary judgment
  • Limitation period
  • Dismissal for non-compliance with court order
  • Special costs
  • Stay of appeal
Read case analysis
Property law 2026 BCSC 267

Cedar Village Holdings Inc. v. Beadle Enterprises Inc.

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The March 1, 2013 solicitor's letter and the April 26, 2012 Form C extension constituted written confirmations that restarted the six-year limitation period under the 1996 Act; no further valid acknowledgements occurred after March 1, 2013, so the six-year period expired on March 1, 2019, extinguishing the debt and the secured parties' rights; there was no binding 2013 agreement varying the balance due date and estoppel by convention failed; therefore the court must order discharge/cancellation of the second mortgage and the dependent mortgage-of-mortgage under ss.244 and 246 of the Land Titl…

Source excerpt

  • Mortgage discharge
  • Mortgage priority
  • Limitation period for debt
  • Confirmation/acknowledgement of debt
  • Estoppel by convention
  • Mortgage of a mortgage
Read case analysis
Contract law 2026 BCSC 237

Canaccord Genuity Corp. v. Vita

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Guarantee is enforceable and Vita is liable to Canaccord despite arguments about expiry of limitation against Amaranthus because (1) the Guarantee's principal debtor clause obliges the guarantor as principal debtor where appropriate; (2) the current Limitation Act bars remedies but does not extinguish the underlying debt as a substantive right; (3) the US$3,000,000 advance is proved by Amaranthus authorization; (4) contractual terms absolve Canaccord from prior enforcement of security and prevent reduction of guarantor liability for its handling of collateral; and (5) the illegality defen…

Source excerpt

  • Guarantee enforcement
  • Personal guarantee
  • Margin account
  • Principal debtor clause
  • Limitation period
  • Ex turpi causa (illegality)
Read case analysis
Civil procedure 2026 NSSC 39

O’Neil v. O’Neil

Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The defendants proved the conveyance was registered in January 2015 and the plaintiff had knowledge of the transfer by fall 2015 such that he had the material facts to draw a plausible inference of liability; therefore the two-year limitation period under the LAA expired well before the claim was filed in 2025 and the plaintiff failed to show a real chance of avoiding the limitation bar, warranting summary dismissal of the claim.

Source excerpt

  • Undue influence
  • Limitation periods - discoverability
  • Standing
  • Summary judgment
  • Transfer of land
  • Probate/will interpretation
Read case analysis
Property law 2026 BCSC 107

Repp v. Butler

Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia

The petition was dismissed because the judge found, on the undisputed material, that the petitioner was fully aware of the respondent's position that he held a 50% legal and beneficial interest no later than October 23, 2015 (triggering the Limitation Act), and, independently, that the petition constituted an abuse of process given the petitioner's prior sworn and documentary representations in the Colorado divorce proceedings asserting a 50% interest; the Chisholm letter was admissible because it was not a settlement offer and summary determination was appropriate as the dispositive facts we…

Source excerpt

  • Resulting trust
  • Constructive trust
  • Partition of property
  • Limitation act discoverability
  • Settlement privilege (without prejudice)
  • Summary determination and hybrid procedures
Read case analysis
Limitation of actions 2025 NSSM 82

Finley Brophy Trucking Limited v. MacDonald

Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

Both the Claimant's claim and the Defendant's counter-claim were commenced outside the two-year limitation under s.8(1)(a) and no lawful acknowledgement or partial payment occurred within the limitation period to restart it under s.20; the consolidated bill of March 31, 2025 was a housekeeping step and not an acknowledgement, therefore both claims are statute-barred and must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Statute of limitations
  • Acknowledgement of liability
  • Limitation period restart
  • Counter-claim
  • Contractual exemption clauses
  • Damages for property damage
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.