COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
(Toronto) Ltd., 2016 ONCA 343
Simmons, Gillese and Hourigan JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Sterling Waterhouse Inc.
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
LCM Endocrinology Centres (Toronto) Ltd.
(formerly known as LMC Developments Ltd.)
and Dr. Ronnie Aronson
Defendants (Appellant)
Leo Klug and Betsy Klug, for the appellant
John Mullen, for the respondent
Heard: May 5, 2016
On appeal from the order of Justice W.M. Matheson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 23, 2015.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1On a summary judgment motion, the motion judge found that the limitation period for Sterling Waterhouse’s claims had not expired and that Dr. Aronson’s limitation defence has therefore failed.
2The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in holding that the respondent had to have discovered the constituent elements of the tort and oppression claims before the limitation period began to run. He submits that it was sufficient that the respondent knew that the corporate defendant had vacated the premises and that the respondent had consulted a lawyer and received advice about the possibility of bringing an action.
3We do not accept the appellant’s submissions.
4The motion judge fully considered the appellant’s arguments and rejected them. At paragraph 45 of her reasons, she said:
As of December 14, 2010, at best, the plaintiff knew that the medical clinic had been closed and the rent was in default. The plaintiff also had some corporate search information from its lawyer. It did not, however, have information that Dr. Aronson had moved LMC’s business, and especially its contracts with its physicians that were its main source of income, to another of his corporations. Nor could that have been discovered, at that early stage by reasonable diligence: e.g., Fracassi v. Cascioli, at para. 274. Indeed, the plaintiff is having difficulty getting information about those matters even now.
5The motion judge therefore concluded that the limitation periods had not expired.
6We agree with the motion judge’s conclusion and her reasoning.
7The appeal is therefore dismissed. Costs of the appeal are to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed in the amount of $3,164.61 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.