Canada Case Law

Independent NS Initiative v. Elections Nova Scotia

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Application for Judicial Review is dismissed because it was brought after the limitation period under Rule 7.05 had run (communication occurred in April 2024) and it amounts to a collateral attack and abuse of process in light of Justice Murray's prior, final decision in PtH 538503 which addressed timeliness and refused to extend time; mandamus was not available and the factual record did not justify reopening issues already decided.

Source excerpt

• Judicial review
• Limitation periods
• Collateral attack
• Abuse of process
• Mandamus
• Standing

Read case analysis

Yinghe Investment (Canada) Ltd. v. Liu

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court concluded the New Oppression Petition duplicates and substantially overlaps prior litigation and, given prior adjudications (including Warren J.'s dismissal and the effective dismissal by Matthews J. of the Strata Ownership Action subject to reconsideration/appeal), constituted an abuse of process and res judicata as against CCM, Run Guo and Xin Liu and must be struck; the New Action was stayed pending resolution of the Strata Ownership Action reconsideration and appeal, but Mr. Chen's distinct Management Fee Claim was allowed to proceed because it is a separate personal contractual…

Source excerpt

• Oppression remedy (s.227 bca)
• Abuse of process
• Res judicata
• Issue estoppel
• Cause of action estoppel
• Limitation periods

Read case analysis

Krytskyy v. Canil

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The appeal is allowed and the NOCC is renewed and may be served on Dr. Abdalvand (and alternatively he is added as a defendant) because the delay was attributable to the plaintiff's lawyers, Dr. Abdalvand is a necessary party, no actual prejudice from the delay was identified beyond the presumption, renewal or joinder best serves the interests of justice, and the addition will not materially delay proceedings.

Source excerpt

• Renewal of notice of civil claim
• Service of process
• Limitation periods
• Adding a defendant
• Prejudice from delay
• Discretionary relief

Read case analysis

I.C. Property Management Solutions Inc. v. Horodyski

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Adjudicator correctly applied s.8(2)(d) by finding discoverability was delayed until late October 2023 because the claimant reasonably relied on the defendant's superior roofing expertise and ongoing remedial efforts and only when the defendant ceased communications and services and the roof deterioration became 'significant' did the claim become sufficiently serious to warrant proceedings; accordingly the action filed in April 2025 was within the two-year limitation period and the appeal fails.

Source excerpt

• Discoverability
• Limitation periods
• S.8(2)(d) of limitation of actions act
• Standard of review on appeal

Read case analysis

EM v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay: evidence showed the June 17, 2025 registered mail was addressed to Service Canada (wrong address) not the Social Security Tribunal, the applicant made no follow-up for seven months, and the proposed appeal did not raise new evidence or identifiable legal errors; therefore interests of justice did not require granting an extension.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Canada pension plan
• Limitation periods
• Procedural requirements

Read case analysis

Wesley v. British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court certified the action as a class proceeding because the pleadings, read generously and assuming pleaded facts true, disclose viable causes of action for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, misfeasance in public office against Canada and the Province in respect of post-immunity periods and as to the Indigenous Subclass, battery/medical negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Dr. MacKenzie as properly pleaded, there is some evidence of an identifiable class and Indigenous subclass of two or more, and the claims raise common issues the determination of which will materially ad…

Source excerpt

• Certification
• Negligence
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Misfeasance in public office
• Unjust enrichment
• Vicarious liability

Read case analysis

Nagendra v. The King

Court

Tax Court of Canada

The Tax Court dismissed a late GST/HST New Residential Rental Property Rebate appeal, holding subsection 296(2.1) did not apply and no time extension was available.

• New residential rental property rebate (nrrpr)
• Limitation periods
• Statutory interpretation of s.296(2.1) eta
• Assessment provisions
• Estoppel
• Discretion to extend time limits

Read case analysis

RCG Islington 401 Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a 36-month municipal by-law deadline for a redevelopment charge reduction was not a limitation period suspended by O. Reg. 73/20.

• Development charges
• Demolition permit
• Building permit deadline
• Limitation periods
• Covid-19 suspension regulation
• By-law interpretation

Read case analysis

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Pavic

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court held that no six-year limitation period applies to a citizenship revocation action under s. 10.1(1) of the Citizenship Act, so the summary judgment motion was dismissed.

• Citizenship revocation
• Limitation periods
• Declaratory relief
• Inadmissibility for war crimes/crimes against humanity
• Effect of legislative amendments
• Citizenship-revocation

Read case analysis

Young v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Leave to amend was granted because the proposed amendments disclosed reasonable causes of action, the delay in pleading personal injury claims was explained and not sufficiently prejudicial given the close factual connection to existing claims and available time before trial, and allowing the amendments better serves the interests of justice than preserving the limitation defence to trial; costs were awarded against the plaintiffs for the application.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of pleadings
• Limitation periods
• Trespass to land
• Negligence
• Psychological injury
• Solicitor-client privilege

Read case analysis