Michael J. Reid

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding alleged defects in the design of an HVAC system, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not discovered until he received an expert report, as the defendants had assured him the design was not flawed.

The court found that the plaintiff knew of the damage and believed the defendants were responsible well before the two-year limitation period expired, as evidenced by his emails and refusal to sign a release.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

In a motion arising from an action to recognize a North Carolina judgment, the moving party sought dismissal or a permanent stay of an unrelated counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively on forum non conveniens grounds.

The court held that commencing a recognition action did not amount to attornment to Ontario jurisdiction over the unrelated counterclaim.

Applying the Van Breda framework, the court found no real and substantial connection between the counterclaim and Ontario.

In the alternative, the court held that Ontario was forum non conveniens because North Carolina law applied, the witnesses were in the United States, and there was a risk of conflicting judgments.

The appellant owned a cottage in a provincial park and historically accessed it by driving over beach property.

The Ministry terminated vehicular access, offering alternative parking.

The appellant sought a declaration of a legally enforceable right to drive over the beach, claiming it was a highway or she had an easement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the Crown owned the beach, it was not a highway, and her prior use was by permission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on ownership, the application of the Public Lands Act, and the lack of an easement, as well as the trial costs award of $133,800.

The appellants sought a rehearing of an appeal regarding the enforcement of a foreign judgment, arguing that the discoverability principle under section 48 of the former Limitations Act did not apply because the respondent knew or ought to have known the appellants lived in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' frequent moves and alleged concealment of their address created a genuine issue for trial regarding when the respondent ought to have known of their residence in Ontario.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendants in California in 1992 and commenced an action in Ontario to enforce it in 2001.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the six-year limitation period for simple contract debts under s. 45(1)(g) of the former Limitations Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, holding that the 20-year limitation period for domestic judgments applied, and alternatively, that a trial was needed to determine if the discoverability principle extended the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal held that a foreign judgment is a simple contract debt subject to a six-year limitation period, but dismissed the appeal because there was a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiff discovered the defendants had returned to Ontario.

The landlord appealed an order of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal granting the tenants a rent abatement for the discontinuance of storage lockers.

On appeal, the landlord introduced fresh evidence showing the lockers had been replaced, making the discontinuance temporary.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, terminating the ongoing rent abatement effective May 1, 2003, pursuant to s. 30(5) of Ontario Regulation 194/98, but awarded costs to the tenants because the appeal arose from the landlord's failure to adduce evidence initially and its subsequent change of position.