A recent decision involving solicitor’s negligence, Rajmohan v. Norman H. Solmon Family Trust, 2014 ONCA 352, required the Ontario Court of Appeal to consider two of the murkier issues relevant to limitations analysis — namely, (1) the doctrine of “fraudulent concealment” and (2) the doctrine of “special circumstances.”
It was alleged that a solicitor had been negligent in representing his client in a mortgage transaction. Because of the client’s intervening death, the claim was brought by the client’s estate. For that reason, the claim was subject to the absolute two-year limitation period under s-s. 38(3) of the Ontario … Continue Reading
Some causes of action are “continuing” in nature. Historically, torts such as trespass or nuisance have in some instances fallen into this category. More recently, Canadian courts have recognized that breaches of contract can also be continuing in nature, particularly in cases where the agreement calls for periodic payments that are dishonored. In essence, Canadian Courts have generally held that the failure to honor each of the scheduled periodic payments gives rise to a discrete, independent cause of action with its own limitation period.
The practical result of this approach has been that even if a claim for breach of … Continue Reading
Public corporations are required by law to provide continuous disclosure of information likely to be relevant to existing or potential shareholders. The directors of such corporations must be careful to ensure that such disclosure is timely and accurate, and that it cannot be characterized as misleading. In recent years, corporate press releases, issued in order to comply with this continuous disclosure obligation, have been the subject of considerable litigation, most notably securities class actions. In dismissing a claim alleging that such a press release was defamatory, a recent ruling of the British Columbia Court of Appeal — Merit Consultants … Continue Reading