2 total
Appeal allowed; negligent building inspection claim statute-barred by 15-year ultimate limitation period as no continuous omission existed.
The respondents purchased a property in 2021 and discovered significant foundation defects in a dwelling constructed between 1986 and 1987.
They sued the appellant municipality in 2022 for negligent supervision of the construction.
The motion judge dismissed the municipality's summary judgment motion, finding that the municipality had an ongoing duty to monitor the open building permit, which constituted a continuous omission tolling the 15-year ultimate limitation period under s. 15(6)(a) of the Limitations Act, 2002.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a continuous act or omission requires successive or repetitive actionable conduct, which was absent here.
The claim was therefore statute-barred by the ultimate limitation period.
The Court also noted the motion judge erred in recognizing a novel duty to monitor without conducting an Anns/Cooper analysis.
A summary judgment motion was dismissed due to a triable issue regarding defect discoverability.
The plaintiffs purchased a home in 2008 that subsequently experienced significant water infiltration problems.
They sued multiple parties, including the original builders and The Corporation of The Township of Clearview, alleging negligent construction and failure to inspect/enforce the Building Code.
Clearview Township brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action against it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.
The court dismissed Clearview's motion, finding that the plaintiffs had raised a triable issue regarding the discoverability of the latent structural defect, as they had reasonably relied on various professionals who did not identify a structural defect until an engineer's report in May 2015.
