Legal Blog
Legally Appropriate-Limitation
Dass v. Kay 2021 Ont CA
Plaintiff was suing the defendant for fraudulently using the plaintiff’s name in an attempt to secure financing. The plaintiff knew about the fraud in August 2015, but did not commence its action until April 2018. It held off commencing the action because it was only in 2018 that it realised that it could not obtain financing on its own from a particular financial institution after being tarred with the improper actions of the defendant. The plaintiff relied on a condition in the Limitations Act that stipulated that the time for the limitation period did not start to run until it was appropriate to commence an action. The court noted that appropriate means legally appropriate, which is not the same as “practically advantageous.” There are many practical and technical reasons (e.g. a belief that the claim might be difficult to prove) a claimant may have for not commencing a proceeding at an earlier time although it is legally appropriate to do so. Legally appropriate does not include an evaluation of whether a civil action will succeed. It is sufficient that the plaintiff know that it has suffered some damage. It is not necessary to know the quantification of the damages (i.e. the sum of money payable to compensate for the actual damage).
Written by Jonathan Speigel, the founding partner of Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, leads the litigation and construction practices. |