In Ontario, the Limitations Act prevents bringing an action on a debt that is more than two years old. Except if the time is extended by an instrument in writing and signed.  

In Fleisher Ridout Partnership Inc. V Tai Foong International Ltd. [2012] O.J. No. 4229 an action was commenced more than two years after invoices were sent. There was an exchange of emails after two years passed.

 by Tali Green

Whether it took years of fierce litigation that ended with a successful trial, or it took a couple months of simple procedural steps, obtaining judgment is, for many litigants, the seemingly final step of the case. Once they get a copy of that judgment from the court, they assume that the judgment debtor will simply pay what he or she owes as a matter of course. Unfortunately, some litigants are soon faced with the hard reality that collecting on the judgment can be much more difficult than obtaining it.

by Tali Green

In Scaffidi-Argentina v Tega Homes Developments Inc, Ontario’s Superior Court decided that Covid 19 means a “change in the calculus” of whether a party should be allowed to bring a summary judgment motion rather than be required to proceed to trial.

In June 2019, Justice MacLeod concluded that the matter ought not to be resolved by summary judgment. While his finding on other issues made this procedural question moot, he noted that the fact that a summary judgment motion “might be available” does not mean that the court will agree to schedule such a motion if “it may delay the trial, use significant resources, or otherwise run counter to the purpose of the rule or ot principles of proportionality and cost effectiveness…” While Justice MacLeod concluded that a summary judgment motion was not appropriate at the time, he noted that a future request to bring such a motion would be a decision “left to another day.”

by Tali Green



In 2484234 Ontario Inc. v. Hanley Park Developments Inc., the Court of Appeal for Ontario (“ONCA”) ordered that an agreement of purchase and sale (“APS”) be rectified, or changed, to include a fifth parcel of land that was not mentioned anywhere on the face of the APS because, the ONCA found, the parties had previously “agreed” that the fifth parcel was included.

In its decision, the ONCA emphasized that a contract will be rectified where there is a variation, or difference, between the executed contract and the parties’ “prior agreement”. The ONCA explained that this variation can arise when one considers not just the words of the prior agreement, but also its surrounding circumstances. Crucially, the ONCA noted that statements made during negotiations that allocate risk among the parties can be considered a representation and warranty in the prior agreement, even if the parties did not specifically refer to those statements as such.

This weekend, thousands of participants will strap on their helmets and peddle their way up the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway in support of the Becel Heart & Stroke Ride for Heart.

Participants are invariably asked to fill out a waiver, promising not to sue the organizers for any reason. But what about the other participants?