2 total
A plaintiff who successfully narrowed her claim to avoid a limitation period cannot later resile from that position to advance a broader claim at trial.
This decision addresses a special case brought under Rule 22.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claim and damages following a Court of Appeal decision.
The plaintiff argued for a broad interpretation of her claim, including losses of pension, salary, benefits, and investment opportunity from 2008.
The defendants contended that the Court of Appeal's reasons, which upheld a finding that the limitation period commenced in 2011 upon the CRA's deregistration of the Individual Pension Plan (IPP), narrowed the claim to only damages related to the tax consequences of the IPP's deregistration.
The court agreed with the defendants, holding that the plaintiff's prior positions taken to avoid summary judgment and succeed on appeal were binding, thereby limiting the claim to tax-related losses from 2011 onwards and excluding earlier alleged damages.
A claim for negligent financial advice regarding a pension plan was not discoverable until the CRA officially deregistered the plan.
The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's claim for negligent financial advice and misrepresentation was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.
They contended the plaintiff discovered her claim by August 2009 when she had concerns about her Individual Pension Plan (IPP) and sought legal advice.
The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until September 28, 2011, when the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) officially deregistered her IPP, as she could not have known of her loss or that a legal proceeding was appropriate before this final determination, especially given the defendants' prior reassurances.
The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding the claim was timely.
