Canada Case Law

MacGillivray v. Choice Properties Real Estate Investment Trust

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

DCI: Summary judgment granted and claim dismissed because the claim against DCI was filed outside the two-year limitation period and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate discoverability delayed commencement or that DCI had sufficient knowledge of the added claim within the limitation period plus time for service under s.22(b) of the LAA. Choice: Summary judgment denied because genuine issues of material fact and mixed fact-and-law remain about whether Choice met its statutory standard of care under the Occupier's Liability Act and whether Choice discharged that duty by contracting DCI, requiri…

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment on evidence
• Discoverability
• Statute of limitations
• Duty of care of occupiers
• Independent contractor liability
• Inspection and maintenance obligations

Read case analysis

Hope v. Comeau

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

No implied waiver: the Hope Affidavit was responsive to the amendment motion and merely referenced communications with counsel without disclosing privileged content or reliance on legal advice; the state of mind formed by legal advice was not shown to be material to the core issues of the action; compelling production would be unfair and risk prejudicing co-client privilege; accordingly the motion to compel production was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege
• Amendment of pleadings
• Production order
• Competence and compellability of counsel
• Costs

Read case analysis

Bryan v. Miguna

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding dismissal of the action as statute-barred and awarding the respondent $8,000 in costs.

• Statute‑barred
• Fraudulent concealment
• Summary judgment
• Limitation period
• Costs
• Statute-barred

Read case analysis

O’Neil v. O’Neil

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Because the defendants succeeded on a determinative summary judgment motion, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 77.08 to award lump sum costs as a substantial contribution to reasonable legal expenses, finding the motion was not complex and noting duplication of work between counsel; awards of $7,500 inclusive to each pair of defendants were appropriate and proportionate.

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment
• Statute of limitations
• Costs awards
• Tariff c
• Lump sum costs

Read case analysis

Collins v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted leave to amend a class proceeding to add breach of contract claims and amended the certification order to add related standing and limitations issues.

• Third-party beneficiary
• Doctrine of privity
• Principled exception to privity
• Standing
• Amendment of pleadings
• Certification order amendment

Read case analysis

Christakos v. Adlington

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Although the Court found the post-discovery delay from July 24, 2019 to the motion to be inordinate and inexcusable, the defendants failed to demonstrate actual or likely serious prejudice and did not satisfy the threshold for presuming prejudice in an extreme case; because one of the required elements (likelihood of serious prejudice) was not established and the parties shared responsibility for the delay, dismissal for want of prosecution was not warranted and the action must be preserved subject to strict timelines.

Source excerpt

• Dismissal for want of prosecution
• Delay/inordinate delay
• Prejudice
• Discovery and undertakings
• Statutory limitation periods

Read case analysis

Holmes v. Lund

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Appeal dismissed: the court upheld joinder of three band members as plaintiffs and preserved any limitation defences only up to the original filing date.

• Joinder of parties
• Preservation and extinction of limitation defences
• Standard of review for associate judge orders
• Sampling vs interpolation rights
• Joinder-of-parties
• Limitation-periods

Read case analysis

J.F. v. B.A.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Court found the Respondent's public social‑media posts were electronic communications that, cumulatively and repeatedly, were likely to cause harm to the Applicant's health or well‑being and were made with malicious intent or recklessness; statutory defences under s.7 were not established; the material constituted a continuing series of acts extending into 2023 so limitation did not bar relief; having regard to s.6 factors the Court declared the communications cyber‑bullying, ordered takedown and injunctive relief, and awarded $70,000 general damages and $15,000 punitive damages (total $8…

Source excerpt

• Non‑consensual sharing of intimate images
• Publication ban for minors
• Statutory defences under s.7
• Limitation periods and continuous acts
• Injunctive takedown orders
• Assessment of general and punitive damages

Read case analysis

Ingram v. Kulynych Estate

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Trustee Act s.38(3) two-year limitation period applies to equitable trust/unjust enrichment claims against estates because such claims constitute a "wrong" under s.38(2), the Trustee Act provisions are the more specific legislative regime applicable to estate claims and must prevail over the general s.4 RPLA limitation, and therefore the respondent's equitable trust claims brought more than two years after the decedent's death are statute-barred.

Source excerpt

• Limitation period selection
• Constructive trust
• Unjust enrichment
• Trustee act s.38(2)-(3)
• Real property limitations act s.4
• Succession law reform act s.61

Read case analysis

T.O. Estate v. D.O.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge erred by applying the wrong Limitation Act analysis; the 2013 advances were demand loans (or in law treated as repayable on demand) so the limitation period began on demand and the demands were within two years of the Amended Application, therefore the claim against Ridgeway for $341,000 was not statute barred; additionally, there was no basis to find the wife personally liable for the 2012 advance made by the husband's corporation and the child support calculation required correction.

Source excerpt

• Demand loans
• Limitations act s.5(3)
• Statute-barred claims
• Acknowledgment of debt s.13 limitations act
• Assignment of debt
• Shareholder/corporate liability

Read case analysis