|
Limitations - Relief from Forfeiture. Brady v. Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
In Brady v. Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a plaintiff's appeal, here brought against the "motion judge’s order dismissing her claim for wrongful dismissal".
Here the court usefully considers 'relief' (though not styled as 'relief from forfeiture'), and cites earlier cases on the non-abolished 'special circumstances' doctrine [though the LA s.4 ("[u]nless [the] Act provides otherwise") seems to apply to the relief from forfeiture argument]:[13] The appellant argues, in the alternative, that if the claim was commenced after the expiry of the limitation period, there was no prejudice to the respondent. The appellant argues that the respondent was aware of the issues the appellant was raising about her employment from exchanges of correspondence, and the claim was filed only approximately six weeks after the limitation period expired.
[14] The Limitations Act, 2002 does not provide for this type of discretionary relief. The basic limitation period of two years from when a claim is discoverable, created by s. 4 of the Act, is mandatory, “[u]nless [the] Act provides otherwise”: Joseph v. Paramount Canada’s Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469, 90 O.R. (3d) 401, at paras. 15, 28; Strathan Corporation v. Khan, 2019 ONCA 418, at para. 8. None of the exceptions in the Act (such as ss. 6, 7, or 20) allow the limitation period in this case to be extended beyond September 14, 2022. . Koch v. Borgatti Estate
In Koch v. Borgatti Estate (Fed CA, 2022) the Federal Court of Appeal touched on, but did not address, the interesting issue of whether equitable relief from forfeiture applied to a procedural timeline (and further to a limitation period):V. Other Grounds of Appeal
[82] In view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to address whether the Federal Court erred in concluding that the equitable principle of relief from forfeiture was not available or that Rule 399(2)(a) did not apply to permit the July orders to be varied to extend the time. However, my decision to not address those issues should not be interpreted as endorsing the Federal Court’s analysis or conclusions with respect to those issues.
|
