Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court held the mortgage was collateral security tied to a land transaction, so s. 15 of the Limitation Act applied and the mortgage was statute-barred.
The credit agreements were demand obligations so the two‑year limitation period began to run when BMO demanded repayment by cancelling the accounts; BMO’s claim was commenced within two years of those demand dates (earliest April 25, 2018), therefore the claim was not statute‑barred and summary judgment was properly granted.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal held that s.16(1.3) applies to claims against a perpetrator as well as third parties and that the motion judge correctly dismissed summary judgment, but erred by declaring that no limitation period applied to all claims because that determination requires trial findings; accordingly the universal declaration was set aside while other aspects of the motion judge's order, including the costs award, were upheld.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge correctly found Thermal Exchange reasonably relied on the Condo Corp.'s assurances and the parties' running account practice, and that Thermal Exchange only knew a proceeding was an appropriate remedy when the property manager emailed on November 4, 2016 denying corporate liability; the action filed within two years of that date was not statute-barred.
Source excerpt
The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent acquired possessory title to the house lands by adverse possession based on open, continuous occupation and mutual mistake; it set aside the trial judge's finding of a prescriptive easement over the cedar trail because use for harvesting wood was not continuous and recreational uses did not demonstrate utility to the dominant tenement; it upheld the laneway prescriptive easement including reasonable maintenance rights based on accepted evidence of maintenance activities.
Source excerpt
The statutory presumption in s.5(2) of the Limitations Act deemed the appellant to have known the identity of the vehicle owner and that an action against the owner was an appropriate remedy as of the date of the accident; the appellant failed to adduce evidence to rebut that presumption, so the claim against the owner was statute‑barred and summary judgment dismissing the claim was proper.
Source excerpt
The court granted leave to file an overdue counterclaim, finding the claim was related to the main action and the delay was due to counsel’s inadvertence.
The Limitations Act does not apply to the regulatory scheme established by the Consumer Reporting Act; the CRA expressly permits reporting of non-judgment debts for up to seven years, and because a limitation period does not extinguish debts, consumer reporting agencies are not required to remove debts solely because a two-year limitation period has passed.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to advance evidence to rebut the presumption under s.5(2) and failed to meet the requirements of s.5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act; accordingly the limitation period applies and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The limitation period began on January 10, 2011—the date of the cheque and its presentation which constituted the respondent's last acknowledgement of indebtedness—so the debt claim commenced January 17, 2013 was statute barred; the later qualified admission in cross-examination did not reset the limitation clock; the motion judge's costs assessment and refusal to order set-off was within discretion and will not be disturbed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
