Canada Case Law

AS v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Notice of Appeal was received by the Tribunal on May 26, 2024, which is more than one year after the Minister informed the appellant of the reconsideration decision on November 14, 2022; because s.52(2) DESD Act bars acceptance of appeals more than one year after notification and no reliable evidence established an earlier filing date, the Tribunal must refuse to accept the late appeal.

Source excerpt

• Canada pension plan disability
• Late appeals
• Extension of time
• Procedural deadlines

Read case analysis

MO v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Tribunal found the reconsideration decisions were communicated on April 28, 2021 and the Notices of Appeal were filed on March 22, 2023, which is more than one year later; subsection 52(2) DESD Act bars appeals filed more than one year after communication, therefore the appeals were out of time and cannot proceed.

Source excerpt

• Late appeals
• Extension of time
• Reconsideration decision communication
• Disentitlement

Read case analysis

CS v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Tribunal found the reconsideration decision was communicated to the Appellant on December 31, 2021 based on Commission notes and a confirming letter; the appeal was filed March 22, 2023, exceeding the one-year limit in subsection 52(2) of the DESD Act, so the appeal is out of time and must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Late appeals
• Extension of time
• Reconsideration decision
• Timeliness under desd act s.52(2)

Read case analysis

Carvery v. Halifax (Regional Municipality)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court exercised its discretion under s.12 of the LAA and disallowed HRM’s limitation defence because the balance of the s.12(5) factors favored the claimant: the delay was caused by inadvertent solicitor error, HRM had notice of the incident within the limitation period and had opportunity to investigate, and HRM did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice from the delay to justify upholding the limitation defence.

Source excerpt

• Limitation periods
• Discretion under s.12 laa
• Hrm charter s.376 notice requirements
• Notice of intended action

Read case analysis

Galota v. Festival Hall Developments Limited

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's factual finding that the plaintiff did not know and, on the objective s.5(1)(b) test, could not reasonably have known of Festival Hall's potential liability until the tenant's discovery on November 11, 2009; the plaintiff rebutted the presumption in s.5(2) and the motion judge did not err, so the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Occupiers' liability
• Discoverability under limitations law
• Limitations act, 2002
• Duty to investigate
• Summary judgment procedure

Read case analysis

Jiang v. Baojian

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held an assault claim was revived by the 2012 Limitation Act, struck the spousal support claim as time-barred, and allowed a limited property claim to proceed.

• Limitation periods and revival
• Discoverability
• Spousal support time limits
• Reapportionment of family assets
• Duress in separation agreements
• Strike‑out standard

Read case analysis

C. G. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Appeal Division refused the extension because the application for leave to appeal was filed more than one year after the Board of Referees decision and the statute (s.57(2)) prohibits extending the filing period beyond one year, leaving the Tribunal no authority to grant the requested extension.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Statutory time limits
• Disentitlement
• Penalty
• Notice of violation

Read case analysis

Hatt v. Peralta

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The trial judge's factual findings that the appellant's use of the disputed cottage lands was casual, intermittent and by a friendly neighbour did not constitute adverse possession or create an easement; those findings were reasonably connected to the evidence and not palpably or overwhelmingly wrong, the legal standard applied (balance of probabilities with requirement for clear and cogent evidence to dispossess a legal owner) was correct, and s.13 of the Limitation of Actions Act does not prevent interruption of adverse possession when a true owner has physically been on the land; therefore…

Source excerpt

• Adverse possession
• Lost modern grant
• Easement by prescription
• Limitation of actions act s.13
• Burden of proof
• Standard of appellate review

Read case analysis

NFC Acquisition L.P. v. Centennial 2000 Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The agreement unambiguously required notice within the specified period (18 months) as a condition precedent to any contractual indemnity under s.6.4(a) by incorporation of s.3.5; s.22 of the Limitations Act, 2002 did not render that contractual notice requirement ineffective because it did not vary or exclude the statutory limitation period; summary dismissal for failure to give timely notice was therefore correct.

Source excerpt

• Indemnity
• Contractual notice provisions
• Limitations act 2002 s.22
• Summary judgment
• Condition precedent
• Contract interpretation

Read case analysis

Chavez v. Burnaby (City of)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed a municipal negligence appeal, found reasonable excuse for late statutory notice, and sent the case back for trial.

• Municipal notice requirements
• Reasonable excuse
• Summary disposition (rule 18a)
• Duty of care
• Negligence
• Prejudice to defendant

Read case analysis