There were seven substantive civil decisions released this week,
and three of note. For those of you wondering when the limitation
period will expire for your unpaid 407 invoices, in 407 ETR
Concession Company Limited v. Day the Court has approved the
contractual extension of the limitation period in the transponder
lease agreements (15 years). Also of interest are the Courts
comments on when the limitation period begins to run (after the
"usually effective" process of license plate denial
proves fruitless). For those 407 users without a transponder, it
appears that the limitation period does not start to run on unpaid
invoices until a license plate renewal is denied. This date could
be as much as two years from the date of the unpaid invoice,
effectively extending the limitation period to four years.
The Court addressed (and denied) security for costs of an appeal
in Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada
Limited on the basis that the moving party waited too long to
bring its motion. Of interest in this case is the argument raised
by the moving party (defendant to a class action) that the
representative plaintiff should be required to ask members of the
class to fund the action. This issue was not determined, though
Huscroft J.A. stated that he thought this requirement would
undermine the concept of a class proceeding, in which the
constituent members have no liability for costs, except with
respect to the determination of their own individual claims.
Finally, Enerzone Inc. v. Ontario (Revenue) involved
whether or not an order was considered interlocutory. This decision
includes an observation and a plea to counsel "...we observe
that the question whether orders made on motions like the motion
before the motion judge are final or interlocutory is an ongoing
problem in this court. Without intending any criticism of anyone,
we observe that the problem could be avoided, or at least
mitigated, if more attention was paid by counsel and motion judges
to the language of the orders disposing of the motion. Appropriate
language in the order could make it clear that the order does or
does not purport to finally dispose of a substantive issue between
Have a nice weekend, and enjoy the 407.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).