Jean Carl Denis

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action for injurious falsehood as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant knew all relevant facts triggering the limitation period more than two years before commencing the action, as he had already suffered damages in the form of professional time spent refuting the allegations.

The appeal was dismissed, but the motion costs were corrected due to an addition error.

The appellant sued the respondents for breach of contract under Rule 76.

The appellant failed to serve his affidavit of documents by the deadline due to document contamination and moved to adjourn the trial.

The respondents moved to strike the statement of claim.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding the appellant failed to raise the issue earlier.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors as the appellant had notified the parties of the contamination well in advance.

The remedy of striking the claim was disproportionate, and the appellant was granted 6 months to serve the affidavit.