The appellant sued the respondents for $500,000 for stolen consigned jewelry.
The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred.
On appeal, the appellant argued that an e-mail from the respondent constituted an acknowledgment of liability under s. 13(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that promissory estoppel prevented reliance on the limitation period.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the e-mail did not clearly and unequivocally acknowledge the debt, and there was no promise to forgo the limitation period.
