Miano v. Campos 2019 Ont SCJ
Defendant defended a personal injury claim, in part with a limitations defence. The plaintiff did not deliver a reply, as he should have, claiming that he relied on the discovery sections of the Limitations Act. The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21(1)(a), alleging that the plaintiff had no cause of action because the action was commenced more than 2 years after the accident. The motion judge dismissed the motion; in effect, the discovery principle raised issues of mixed fact and law and, unless the facts are crystal clear and undisputed, Rule 21(1)(a) should not be used to determine limitation issues.
Written by Jonathan Speigel, the founding partner of Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, leads the litigation and construction practices.