2 total
The court dismissed the defendants' motions to strike, finding the plaintiff's claims were neither an abuse of process nor statute-barred.
The defendants, Garry Shapiro and Kaveh Najafi, brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.
Shapiro sought to set aside a noting of default and dismiss the action as an abuse of process and statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, based on a prior dismissed action from 2011.
Najafi sought to strike the statement of claim, arguing it was statute-barred.
The court found that the 2015 action was not an abuse of process as the prior action was not decided on its merits.
Regarding the limitation period, the court applied Section 11 of the Limitations Act, 2002, finding that the family law proceedings between the plaintiff and Najafi, which resulted in a Family Order in 2014, suspended the limitation period.
The Family Order also created new rights and obligations, giving rise to fresh causes of action.
The court also noted the potential applicability of the Real Property Limitations Act, which provides a ten-year limitation period.
Consequently, the defendants failed to establish that the 2015 action was statute-barred.
The motions to dismiss were largely dismissed, with the exception of setting aside the noting in default against Shapiro by consent.
Appeal dismissed; settlement privilege waived when appellants led evidence of the discussions at trial.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $231,963 for loans advanced.
The appellants argued the trial judge erred by relying on evidence of settlement discussions held before a mediator in India, claiming settlement privilege.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had waived any potential settlement privilege by failing to pursue their objection, leading their own evidence about the discussions, and relying on that evidence in closing submissions.
The trial judge's finding of personal liability was upheld.
