The moving defendant sought summary judgment dismissing the action on the basis that the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The plaintiff alleged that a former business partner misrepresented that a joint electricity transmission project had been abandoned while secretly continuing the project through other corporations.
The court held that the discoverability principle applied and that the plaintiff did not learn facts giving rise to the claim until after a reporter’s inquiry in 2007, after which he conducted due diligence.
On the record before the court, there was evidence capable of supporting a discoverability date after April 2007, making the 2009 action potentially timely.
The summary judgment motion was dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded due to the unmeritorious nature of the motion.
