The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the respondent's counterclaim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act.
The respondent had alleged fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a fuel-saving device but failed to file responding evidence on the summary judgment motion.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by relying on unsupported pleadings and misapprehending when the limitation period commenced.
Summary judgment was granted dismissing the counterclaim.
