Canada Case Law

Medjuck v. Medjuck

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court allowed specific pleaded amendments that had effectively been consented to or were not prejudicial, but refused to add OSP as a plaintiff and refused derivative leave because the applicant failed to satisfy the s.4(2) statutory prerequisites (no reasonable notice to directors, lack of good faith, and substantial limitation period barriers making the derivative claim unlikely to succeed); disclosure claims were dismissed because respondents' production was adequate and non‑party requests were irrelevant or overbroad; costs awarded to defendants.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of pleadings
• Derivative action/leave to bring action on behalf of company
• Reasonable notice to directors
• Good faith requirement for derivative actions
• Limitation periods and discoverability
• Production and disclosure obligations

Read case analysis

Owners of Strata Plan EPS1699 v. Ponderosa Peachland Development Limited Partnership

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed in part an application for leave to file a third party notice, refusing the time-barred contractual debt claim against Ponderosa while allowing the notice to proceed against consenting defendants.

• Third party notice
• Leave to third party
• Limitation act s.22
• Contribution and indemnity
• Prejudice and delay
• Contractual debt

Read case analysis

Gillard v. Gillis

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Summary judgment granted dismissing plaintiff's claims because there were no genuine issues of material fact, the only plausible claim (solicitor negligence) failed as a matter of law because no solicitor-client relationship or reliance existed, the claim was time-barred under limitation rules and Land Registration Act procedures, and the plaintiff showed no real prospect of success or proven damages; costs awarded to defendant.

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment
• Solicitor negligence
• Quit claim deed
• Discoverability
• Limitation of actions
• Land registration act

Read case analysis

Blackburn Radio Inc. v. The Queen

Court

Tax Court of Canada

The Fourth 1999 Reassessment was statute barred and the Minister lacked authority to issue it to extend the time for consequential reassessments under s.152(4.3); further, the change in tax balance occurred by the court's vacatur of the Third 1999 Reassessment so the Fourth 1999 Reassessment did not change a 'balance' under s.152(4.4); therefore the consequential reassessments for 2000 and 2005 were invalid and are vacated.

Source excerpt

• Consequential reassessment s.152(4.3)
• Statute‑barred reassessment
• Nil assessment
• Vacatur of reassessment
• Refund obligations under s.164(4.1)

Read case analysis

Jablonski v. The Queen

Court

Tax Court of Canada

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not serve a Notice of Objection nor make the required application to the Minister within the one year and 90 days prescribed by the Income Tax Act, and the Court has no jurisdiction to extend that statutory limit; the notice was treated as mailed July 31, 2008 and the application was filed outside the permitted period.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Notice of objection
• Notice of reassessment
• Service/mailing
• Mental capacity and limitation periods

Read case analysis

Janssen Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited

Court

Federal Court

La Cour fédérale rejette la requête visant à ajouter quatre entités comme demanderesses aux seules fins de la phase des dommages, avec dépens de 10 000 $.

• Joinder of parties
• Damages
• Persons claiming under the patentee (s.55 patent act)
• Limitation periods
• Res judicata/estoppel
• Joinder-of-parties

Read case analysis

Rose v. Krieser, In Trust

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court held s.31's proviso barring indefeasibility after 40 years applies to written deeds or agreements that create permissive use, not to written agreements that create a use 'as of right', and because the prescriptive easement found covered an area materially different in size/configuration from the 1955 right‑of‑way the applications judge rightly found prescription; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Prescriptive easement
• Limitations act s.31
• Use as of right vs permission
• Registration and notice
• Doctrine of lost modern grant
• Necessity of easement

Read case analysis