Shelly J. Harper

In a supplementary endorsement, the Court of Appeal for Ontario clarified its previous judgment regarding the post-maturity interest rate on a promissory note.

The court set aside its previous endorsement and specified that the intent was to ensure the interest after maturity remained the same as before maturity.

Accordingly, the post-maturity interest rate was set at 10 per cent per annum, calculated semi-annually not in advance.

The appellants requested that the Court of Appeal change its judgment to award post-maturity interest at 10 per cent per annum as compound interest rather than simple interest.

The Court declined the request, noting that the appellants had not previously asserted a claim for compound interest and that the governing promissory note did not provide for it.

The award of 10 per cent simple interest was maintained.

The appellants sold their shares in a trailer park to the respondents, taking back a promissory note bearing 10 percent interest annually until maturity.

The note did not specify a post-maturity interest rate.

After the respondents defaulted, the trial judge held that the post-maturity interest rate was 5 percent pursuant to section 3 of the Interest Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the prejudgment interest provisions of the Courts of Justice Act ousted section 3 of the Interest Act.

The Court exercised its discretion to fix the post-maturity interest rate at 10 percent, matching the pre-maturity rate, to reflect commercial reality and prevent the respondents from benefiting from their default.

The appellant, a victim of childhood incest by her father, brought an action for damages for assault and battery and breach of fiduciary duty when she was 28 years old.

The trial judge held the action was barred by the Limitations Act, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the tort claim was subject to the reasonable discoverability rule, and the limitation period did not begin to run until the appellant entered therapy and realized the causal connection between her injuries and the abuse.

The Court also held that a parent owes a fiduciary duty to their child, and incest constitutes a breach of that duty, which is not subject to the statutory limitation period.