Summary

Keywords

Limitation of actions — Action dismissed on summary judgment on basis it was commenced beyond limitation period set out in Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24 — Whether there was no genuine issue requiring a trial — Whether summary judgment ought to have been granted to applicant who refused to attend for cross-examination and failed to meet onus of proof — Whether leave ought to be granted to amend statement of claim — Whether hearing wrongly proceeded to summary judgment notwithstanding endorsement of motion to strike claims — Who has onus of proof on a motion for summary judgment — What constitutes a “genuine issue” for the purposes of s. 5(1)(a)(ii) of the Limitations Act in respect of different causes of action and distinct claims — What is the meaning of an “appropriate” proceeding in s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act — What is the purpose of the ultimate limitation periods pursuant to s. 15 of the Limitations Act?

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Ms. Visic was employed by the law firm Elia Associates Professional Corporation in 2007 as an articling student and Ms. Elia was her principal. Her articles ended after 5 months. In 2018, Ms. Visic commenced an action for defamation, negligence, wrongful termination, breach of duty and other causes of action. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the action was barred by a limitation period set out in Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment and dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.

Lower Court Rulings