3 total
Appeal dismissed as the appellant knew of the loss and damages outside the limitation period.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim, arguing it only discovered its loss from a breach of duty to warn when an internal investigation report was disclosed in 2010.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant knew the goods were stolen and that it had paid storage fees for missing goods by October 2006.
The court noted that knowing the full extent of damages is not required to trigger the limitation period under section 5 of the Limitations Act.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Action dismissed as statute‑barred where plaintiff knew material facts years before suing.
The defendant brought a Rule 21.01(1)(a) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of duty after frozen poultry products stored at the defendant’s facility were discovered missing in 2006.
The plaintiff argued that it did not discover its claim until 2010 when an internal investigation report revealed security deficiencies and prior knowledge of thefts.
The court held that the pleaded facts showed the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the material facts supporting a claim in 2006–2007 when it demanded compensation from the defendant.
Applying the discoverability principles under s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, the court concluded the two‑year limitation period had expired and dismissed the action.
Appeal abandoned on consent with costs fixed at $3,500 to the respondent.
The appellant abandoned its appeal on consent.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the appeal abandoned and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $3,500.
