This appeal concerned a limitation period defence in an unjust enrichment claim.
The respondent, a hotel, had overpaid hydro costs to the appellant, a condominium, for years due to a flawed utility-sharing formula.
The errors were not discovered until 2017, and the action was commenced in 2018.
The trial judge rejected the limitation defence, finding the errors were not apparent and the respondent exercised reasonable due diligence.
On appeal, the appellant argued errors in the trial judge's discoverability and due diligence analysis, and conflation of actual and constructive knowledge.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's findings of fact or legal conclusions, affirming that the errors were not reasonably discoverable and due diligence was exercised.
The Court also rejected arguments regarding juristic reason and equitable set-off.
