Category: Limitations Page 1 of 2

The Discoverability Principle Applies—No Seriously, For Real This Time—to Contract Claims in Alberta

Case Commented On: Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 (CanLII)

Last month, the Alberta Court of Appeal delivered its long-awaited decision in Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49 (CanLII) (Weir-Jones). The decision has been much anticipated largely because it clarified the correct standard of proof for summary judgment applications in Alberta (a balance of probabilities). As a bonus, the decision also provided clarification on another topic in which confusing and contradictory lines of authority had emerged in Alberta: the question of whether the discoverability principle applies when determining limitation periods applicable to breaches of contract in Alberta. Does a plaintiff’s limitation period for a breach of contract claim commence when the breach occurred, or when the plaintiff ought to have discovered that it had a claim?

Recent Developments in Domestic Violence Law and Policy in Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On May 24, 2017

In Family, Labour/Employment, Limitations, State Responses to Violence

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Recent Developments in Domestic Violence Law and Policy in Alberta

Legislation and Report Commented On: Bill 2, An Act to Remove Barriers for Survivors of Sexual and Domestic Violence; Family Violence Death Review Committee Annual Report 2015-2016

Statistics Canada’s most recent report on family violence indicates that although the rate of family violence reported to the police was stable across the country overall from 2014 to 2015, Alberta experienced a 2% increase in the rate of family violence during this period (Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2015 at 37). Shelters in Alberta also report an increase in the number of calls to their crisis lines and for shelter space since 2014. At the same time, results from Canada’s 2014 General Social Survey showed that 7/10 self-reported victims of spousal violence did not report the violence to police, often because they viewed the abuse as a “private matter” (Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2014 at 10).

Within this context, two recent developments in Alberta merit discussion. Bill 2, An Act to Remove Barriers for Survivors of Sexual and Domestic Violence, removes the limitation period that would otherwise restrict the time within which civil claims for damages can be commenced in domestic violence and sexual assault cases, and the Family Violence Death Review Committee’s 2015-2016 Annual Report makes several recommendations for changes to Alberta law and policy to better deal with family violence issues.

Co-Owners and Adverse Possession – The Uniqueness of Alberta?

By Nickie Nikolaou

On January 24, 2017

In Limitations, Property

By: Nickie Nikolaou

PDF Version: Co-Owners and Adverse Possession – The Uniqueness of Alberta?

Case Commented On: Verhulst Estate v Denesik, 2016 ABQB 668 (CanLII)

In an earlier post, I concluded that Master Schlosser was correct in finding that a co-owner will typically not be able to claim their co-owner’s interest in the property through the doctrine of adverse possession. In this appeal upholding that decision, Justice D.L. Shelley queries whether a co-owner in Alberta can ever make a claim for adverse possession against a co-owner. This leads her on an interesting journey across Canada which suggests, but does not conclude, that Alberta might be unique in its treatment of co-owners and adverse possession.

Extending Limitation Periods for Environmental Actions

By Nickie Nikolaou

On October 6, 2016

In Environmental, Limitations

By: Nickie Nikolaou

PDF Version: Extending Limitation Periods for Environmental Actions

Case Commented On: Lakeview Village Professional Centre Corporation v Suncor Energy Inc, 2016 ABQB 288 (CanLII)

The nature of environmental contamination often requires the bending of usual legal rules. Because contamination can take years to develop or be discovered, the application of traditional limitation periods to actions for the recovery of damages from environmental contamination could result in unfairness. It could also mean the ultimate costs of clean-up would fall to the public purse if no financially viable party is liable for the clean-up. Alberta has modified its statutory limitation periods to address this problem. Section 218 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c. E-12 (EPEA) allows a court to extend a limitation period “where the basis for the proceeding is an alleged adverse effect resulting from the alleged release of a substance into the environment.” After years on the books, this is the first case to clarify the procedure courts should follow under section 218 of the EPEA.

Limitation Periods and the Subjective Element

By Colleen Ma

On February 28, 2013

In Limitations

PDF version: Limitation Periods and the Subjective Element

Case considered: Boyd v Cook, 2013 ABCA 27.

As my University of Calgary law professors repeat time after time, a missed limitation date is one of the few things you cannot fix as a lawyer. So, when I came across this recent Alberta Court of Appeal case, naturally I paid close attention. The underlying claim was an investment in an unsuccessful development project. Mr. Cook induced Mr. Boyd to invest in a mortgage company. The majority of the funds were used to invest in a development project that Mr. Boyd had flatly refused on several occasions to invest in. Mr. Boyd filed a Statement of Claim. Mr. Cook sought summary dismissal on limitation grounds. A Master dismissed the summary dismissal application (2012 ABQB 284), which was upheld by a chambers judge. It looked like the parties were going to trial. However, the Court of Appeal decided to allow the limitations defense.