2 total
Appeal allowed to correct misnomer in statement of claim after limitation period expired.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to correct the title of proceedings to name the Regional Municipality of Durham as a defendant in place of two other municipalities after the limitation period had expired.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim clearly intended to name the municipality responsible for the road, and Durham knew it was the intended defendant.
Applying the doctrine of misnomer under section 21(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, the court ordered the substitution of Durham as a defendant.
In the absence of a verification agreement, bank customers owe no duty to examine statements for forgeries.
The appellant's employee forged signatures on cheques drawn on the appellant's account at the respondent bank.
The bank honoured the cheques and debited the appellant's account.
The appellant sued the bank to recover the funds.
The bank argued the appellant was precluded from setting up the forgeries because it breached a duty to examine its bank statements and maintain adequate internal controls.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that, in the absence of an express verification agreement, a customer does not owe a duty to the bank to examine bank statements with reasonable care and report discrepancies, nor does it owe a duty to maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls.
The appeal was allowed and judgment entered for the appellant.
