Beaton v. Scotia iTrade, 2013 ONCA 554

ENDORSEMENT

1The appellant appeals from the dismissal of his claim as being commenced outside the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002. He submits that the motions judge erred in failing to conclude that the limitation period was tolled by the respondent’s fraudulent concealment of certain information and that the motions judge gave insufficient reasons in rejecting this argument. The appellant relies on the following sentence in the motion judge’s reasons in which he says the motions judge dismissed the argument in a single conclusory statement saying, “There is simply no basis in the evidence for the fraudulent concealment claim.”

2Reading the motions judge’s reasons as a whole, the motions judge held that there was nothing of substance in the disclosures that the appellant now says were concealed. On the relevant date, December 14, 2006, the appellant did not seek to trade his shares through Scotia iTrade and thus the lack of disclosure was immaterial. Further, although Scotia did not provide information relating to a telephone call the appellant says was important and that it concealed this information until much later, the appellant was a party to that telephone call. Therefore the motions judge was correct in his conclusion that there was no basis in the evidence for the claim of fraudulent concealment.

3Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent are on a partial indemnity scale and fixed in the amount of $7,500 inclusive of all applicable taxes and disbursements.