Christopher Prince

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action regarding a collapsed hog barn, arguing it was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was tolled due to the defendants' wilful concealment of construction deficiencies.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the fraudulent concealment exception for the corporate defendants and dismissed their motion.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the individual engineer defendants, finding they were protected by a limitation of liability clause in their employer's contract.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the estates of the deceased drivers.

Due to the plaintiff and his father sharing the same name, the plaintiff's counsel mistakenly believed the plaintiff owned the vehicle and did not name the father as a defendant.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiff added the father as a defendant.

The third-party insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against the father as statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the father's ownership was discoverable with reasonable diligence before the limitation period expired, and drew an adverse inference from the failure of the plaintiff, his father, and their senior counsel to provide affidavits.

The respondent requested clarification of a paragraph in the court's previous decision regarding an insurance coverage dispute.

The court issued an addendum clarifying that the respondent is responsible for the first $200,000 of any judgment or settlement against the insured in the underlying action, while maintaining its contractual right to deny coverage to other parties.