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 the parties."

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.