The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their action against a police officer and the Police Services Board as statute-barred by a six-month limitation period.
The central issue was whether the appellants' solicitor ought to have discovered the officer's identity on March 10, when a junior secretary picked up a letter identifying him, or on March 11, when the solicitor actually read it.
The Court of Appeal held that reasonable diligence did not require the solicitor to read the letter on March 10.
The appeal was allowed with respect to the officer, permitting the action against him to continue, but the dismissal against the Board was upheld on consent.
