Panagiotis Peter Diavolitsis

This decision addresses a special case brought under Rule 22.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claim and damages following a Court of Appeal decision.

The plaintiff argued for a broad interpretation of her claim, including losses of pension, salary, benefits, and investment opportunity from 2008.

The defendants contended that the Court of Appeal's reasons, which upheld a finding that the limitation period commenced in 2011 upon the CRA's deregistration of the Individual Pension Plan (IPP), narrowed the claim to only damages related to the tax consequences of the IPP's deregistration.

The court agreed with the defendants, holding that the plaintiff's prior positions taken to avoid summary judgment and succeed on appeal were binding, thereby limiting the claim to tax-related losses from 2011 onwards and excluding earlier alleged damages.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action as statute‑barred, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be denied because the court had found the defendants committed a fraud or misrepresentation in the underlying real estate transaction.

The court held that, despite sympathy for the plaintiffs, the action had been commenced outside the applicable limitation period and should not have been brought so late.

Costs therefore followed the result, though the defendants’ claimed partial indemnity costs were reduced.

The court fixed partial indemnity fees at 66 percent of the full indemnity amount, with HST applied and disbursements allowed as claimed.

The plaintiffs commenced an action alleging misrepresentation in connection with the purchase of a residential property, claiming the vendors falsely represented that the property had no flooding, water issues, or prior renovations.

Evidence showed that the purchasers discovered moisture, rot, and structural concerns within the first two years after closing.

The defendants raised a limitation defence under the Limitations Act.

The court held that the purchasers had sufficient knowledge of material facts to trigger discoverability well before the action was issued, and that reasonable inquiry would have revealed the alleged misrepresentation earlier.

The action was therefore statute‑barred.