2 total
Summary judgment set aside as defendants failed to establish entitlement to statutory limitation period protection.
The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their negligence action against a pharmacist and pharmacy as statute-barred under the one-year limitation period in s. 89(1) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the respondents failed to plead or provide evidence that the individual pharmacist was a member of the Ontario College of Pharmacists, which is required for the limitation period to apply.
Furthermore, there was a live issue regarding whether the corporate defendant could claim the protection of the limitation period, meaning summary judgment was improperly granted.
Leave to appeal granted due to conflicting authorities on the evidentiary basis required for litigation privilege.
The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the commencement date of litigation privilege over certain documents in an accident benefits dispute.
The plaintiff argued that the judge erred in accepting a bald assertion by the defendant's lawyer as sufficient evidence to meet the dominant purpose test for litigation privilege.
The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the decision conflicted with established authorities and that there was good reason to doubt its correctness, satisfying the test under Rule 62.02(4)(a) and (b).
