Justice A. J. Goodman

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing a claim seeking payment under two 1988 certificates of deposit that allegedly remained unpaid.

The plaintiffs commenced the action in 2011, more than two decades after the certificates matured.

The court held that the certificates constituted demand obligations and promissory notes within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act.

Applying the transitional provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 and the former six‑year limitation period, the court found the claim arose no later than 1988 or 1989 and was therefore long statute‑barred.

The court also held the equitable doctrine of laches applied due to the plaintiffs’ 23‑year delay and resulting prejudice to the defendant.

The moving defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a certification order in a class proceeding alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the market for polyether polyol products.

The motion argued that the pleadings were deficient, that the motions judge failed to review evidence supporting the proposed common issues, and that the plaintiff’s economist lacked the required expertise.

The court held that certification judges are entitled to deference and that the certification stage requires only some basis in fact that certification criteria are met, not proof of the underlying conspiracy.

Reading the certification reasons contextually, the court concluded that the motions judge had considered the applicable principles and that there was no serious doubt as to the correctness of the order.

The moving defendants therefore failed to satisfy the leave test under Rule 62.02(4).

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar’s administrative dismissal of an action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action had previously been stayed by court order under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 in favour of arbitration pursuant to a contractual arbitration clause.

The court held that a judicial stay places the proceeding in suspended animation such that the parties cannot take further procedural steps and the administrative timelines under Rule 48.14 cannot operate.

The Registrar therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue a status notice and dismissal order while the action remained stayed.

The administrative dismissal and resulting certificate of assessment of costs were set aside and the action remained stayed pending arbitration.