Rohit Parekh

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing a counterclaim alleging misrepresentation, breach of contract, and intentional interference with economic relations on the basis that it was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The counterclaim asserted claims virtually identical to those raised by the respondent in an earlier action that had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction following enforcement of a forum selection clause by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court held that the Limitations Act, 2002 is exhaustive and does not permit courts to decline to apply statutory limitation periods based on special circumstances.

As the claims were discovered years earlier and no statutory exception applied, the counterclaim was statute‑barred.

The court granted summary judgment striking the counterclaim and ordered the respondent to pay funds into court pending resolution of an indemnity claim, failing which judgment would issue.

The Commissioner of Competition sought declaratory and remedial relief under s. 74.01(1)(a) of the Competition Act for a deceptive marketing scheme involving unsolicited faxes and websites designed to mimic a well‑known business directory provider.

The respondents’ materials suggested recipients were updating existing listings while the fine print created binding two‑year contracts for directory services.

The court found the representations materially false or misleading and concluded the scheme deceived thousands of Canadian businesses and organizations.

The court declared the conduct reviewable under the Competition Act, voided the contracts, ordered restitution to affected customers, imposed corrective notice requirements, and issued a ten‑year prohibition order.

Administrative monetary penalties totaling $8 million against corporate respondents and additional penalties against individual respondents were imposed.