4 total
Appeal dismissed; action statute-barred as correspondence showed appellant discovered claim four years before filing.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action as statute-barred.
He argued the limitation period should be suspended due to his psychological condition and the respondent's fraudulent concealment of documents.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's own correspondence from 2008 demonstrated he had discovered his claim and possessed the requisite knowledge to commence an action roughly four years before he did so.
Successful defendant awarded reduced costs after dismissal of action.
Following the dismissal of an action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs.
The self-represented plaintiff did not respond to the requested amount and instead indicated an intention to appeal.
The court reviewed the defendant’s detailed bill of costs, which included internal chargeback rates for in-house counsel and law clerks.
While accepting that the defendant was entitled to substantial costs given the seriousness of the allegations and procedural history, the court made a global reduction to account for overlapping time entries and travel-related fees.
Costs were fixed and ordered payable jointly and severally by the plaintiffs.
Action dismissed as statute‑barred and for failure to disclose a reasonable cause.
The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment and to strike the plaintiffs’ action alleging damages arising from alleged unpaid commissions and wrongful conduct in terminating an insurance producer agreement.
The court found the claim was commenced well beyond the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The plaintiff argued that psychiatric illness rendered him incapable of commencing proceedings, but the evidence, including medical records and his own conduct, did not establish incapacity sufficient to suspend the limitation period.
The court also held that the pleadings failed to disclose reasonable causes of action for mental distress damages, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of good faith, punitive damages, or loss of business.
The motion was granted and the action dismissed without leave to amend.
Appeal allowed and summary judgment granted dismissing the action as the disability policy language was clear and unambiguous.
The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.
The respondent had received disability benefits after an accident but returned to work full-time for over six months before going off work again following an MRI.
The insurer denied the resumption of benefits based on the 'Recurrent Disability' clause in the policy.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the policy language clear and unambiguous, and held that the motion judge erred in law by concluding a trial was necessary to interpret the policy in light of the MRI.
Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.
