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 of Appeal held that an order adding parties did not finally dispose of a limitations defence, so the appeal was interlocutory and was quashed.
The motion judge erred procedurally by failing to proceed under Rule 13.03 for summary judgment on the pleadings; on the materials and procedure before the court the IIMD claim was not shown to be clearly unsustainable and the order striking the IIMD pleadings must be set aside; however the motion judge correctly struck non‑material allegations in paragraphs 39 and 41. The proper interpretation of s.11(a) remains to be determined in the litigation.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Haytham Elzayat’s appeal from an order striking his discrimination claim against Rogers Communication and held the fresh-evidence motion failed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal about leave to issue a third-party claim, holding the claim was time-barred and the appellant’s fresh evidence was inadmissible.
The court held the respondent’s spousal support counterclaim was statute-barred and refused to permit it under the Limitation Act. Interim support was dismissed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a refusal to add proposed defendants, holding the claims were statute-barred and the presumption of discovery was not rebutted.
Both the claim and the counterclaim are statute-barred because the material facts constituting discoverable damage occurred in 2021 more than two years before filings, and no valid written and signed acknowledgement under s.20 of the LOAA was proved to reset the limitation period; typed names or valedictions in emails do not satisfy the statutory signature requirement or the threshold for an acknowledgement as required by s.20(10) and the Electronic Commerce Act does not transform such emails into signed acknowledgements in the absence of prescribed electronic signature verification.
Source excerpt
The court upheld a subpoena to plaintiffs’ counsel, finding he was a necessary witness on May 2016 events relevant to limitation issues, and found no abuse of process.
Where a contract conditions a party's obligation to file a notice of protest and pursue ADR on the existence of a referee decision, the contractual two-year post-completion protest/ADR period applies only if the referee decision is released within that two-year period; a party cannot be required to protest a non-existent decision and therefore the contractual two-year limitation did not oust the statutory limitation period under s.4 of the Limitations Act when the referee decision was released after the contractual period; the appellant's claim was timely.
Source excerpt
La Cour fédérale rejette une motion visant la mainlevée d’une hypothèque maritime sur le plaisancier Sabbatical, mais valide le service électronique des intimés à l’étranger.
Explore more
