Mark E. Alter

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The court found that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that the defendants' failure to advance their third-party claim contributed to the delay in scheduling mediation.

The court also found that the defendants suffered no actual prejudice from the delay, as the intervening bankruptcy of some defendants was unrelated to the litigation timeline.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside, with no order as to costs.

The appellant challenged the motion judge’s conclusion that his claim on a $50,000 loan was statute-barred.

He argued the loan was for a specific purpose rather than a demand loan, and that the limitation period was tolled by alleged wilful concealment, misrepresentation, and incapacity.

The court held that even accepting the appellant’s evidence, he knew by June 2005 that he had a cause of action, and in any event the first written demand in May 2006 triggered the running of the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment for the balance of proceeds from the sale of a property she held in trust for the defendants, her daughter and son-in-law.

The son-in-law opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff breached her trust duties by delegating control of the trust funds to her daughter and by selling the property improvidently.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's delegation of discretionary trust powers and the need for an accounting of the trust funds raised genuine issues requiring a trial.