3 total
Court allows addition of defendant post‑limitation where discoverability raises triable issue.
The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rules 26.02(b) and 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to add an individual as a defendant after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The claim arose from a letter allegedly authored by the proposed defendant accusing the plaintiffs of criminal conduct and demanding their resignation from a religious organization.
The plaintiffs argued they only discovered the individual’s potential liability after the limitation period when the corporate defendant denied responsibility for the conduct of the local council.
The court held that the evidentiary threshold for discoverability at the amendment stage is low and that the plaintiffs had provided a reasonable explanation showing a triable issue regarding due diligence.
The motion to add the proposed defendant was granted with leave for the added defendant to plead a limitations defence.
Appeal of equalization payment and accounting dismissed; trial judge's findings and costs award upheld.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and the accounting of debits and credits.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent owed an equalization payment of $9,764.30.
The court was also satisfied that the appellant received a fair trial and found no error in the trial judge's costs award.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Municipality held liable for malicious prosecution; punitive damages reduced to $450,000 to account for compensatory awards.
The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for malicious prosecution and awarding $550,000 in punitive damages to the respondent estate.
The deceased had been wrongfully dismissed from his position as a building inspector, after which the municipality withheld exculpatory evidence from the police, leading to criminal charges of which he was ultimately acquitted.
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of malicious prosecution, concluding the municipality initiated the proceedings by withholding evidence.
However, the Court allowed the appeal on punitive damages in part, reducing the award to $450,000 because the trial judge failed to account for the punitive elements of the substantial compensatory damages and costs already awarded.
