Émilie Leblanc Lacasse

The plaintiffs initiated an action against the defendants for breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation concerning investment rental properties and their management.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found the action amenable to summary judgment and determined that the plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of their loss and its cause by December 12, 2017, at the latest, when they terminated their property management agreement.

As the Statement of Claim was issued on March 16, 2020, beyond the two-year limitation period, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the action as time-barred.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for negligence, breach of contract, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, which was found to be statute-barred.

They also sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the fresh evidence motion, finding it did not meet the Palmer test, and the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the limitation period had expired by December 2018.

The court affirmed that the appellants had sufficient knowledge of their losses and the responsible parties by spring 2016, and their subjective belief that a proceeding was not "appropriate" did not delay discoverability.

The appellants, minority shareholders in a family lumber business, appealed the dismissal of their application for an oppression remedy and winding-up order under the Business Corporations Act.

They argued the motion judge erred by failing to address the winding-up provisions, taking judicial notice of political news, and finding parts of their claim statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the criteria for winding-up were the same as for oppression, which the judge correctly found was not established.

The court also upheld the judge's findings that the appellant had no reasonable expectation of becoming an officer or receiving dividends given the company's conservative management and industry challenges.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement, while the plaintiffs cross-moved to dismiss the defendant's motion and enforce the Minutes themselves.

A trial of an issue was held to determine if the plaintiffs had fulfilled their obligations under the settlement.

The court found that the plaintiffs had substantially complied with fence erection terms but failed to complete municipal grading requirements by the agreed deadline, which was an essential term.

Consequently, the plaintiffs were found in breach of the Minutes of Settlement, their motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion was allowed.

The plaintiffs were ordered to complete the grading work and eliminate fence gaps within 100 days.