Talk:Discovery Principle: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presented by Riverview Legal Services
(226) 600-1076
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
==Policy Rationale== | ==Policy Rationale== | ||
1) | 1) Limitation periods foster certainty | ||
“[t]here comes a time . . . when a potential defendant should be secure in his reasonable expectation that he will not be held to account for ancient obligations”(M. (K.), at p. 29) | “[t]here comes a time . . . when a potential defendant should be secure in his reasonable expectation that he will not be held to account for ancient obligations”(M. (K.), at p. 29) | ||
This concern must be balanced against the unfairness of allowing a wrongdoer to escape liability while the victim of injury continues to suffer the consequences (M. (K.), at p. 29) | This concern must be balanced against the unfairness of allowing a wrongdoer to escape liability while the victim of injury continues to suffer the consequences (M. (K.), at p. 29) | ||
2) | 2) Limitation periods are intended to help prevent evidence from going stale | ||
limitation periods are intended to help prevent evidence from going stale, to the detriment of the plaintiff or the defendant (M. (K.), at p. 30) | limitation periods are intended to help prevent evidence from going stale, to the detriment of the plaintiff or the defendant (M. (K.), at p. 30) | ||
3) | 3) Limitation periods are to encourage plaintiffs to be diligent in pursuing their claims | ||
limitation periods serve to encourage diligence on the part of plaintiffs in pursuing their claims (M. (K.), at p. 30). | limitation periods serve to encourage diligence on the part of plaintiffs in pursuing their claims (M. (K.), at p. 30). | ||
Latest revision as of 19:03, 19 February 2020
| WARNING - THIS PAGE CONTAINS PERSONAL OPINIONS AND IS NOT AUTHORITATIVE LAW UNLESS SPECIFICALLY CITED |
Understanding Limitations
According to Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42 (CanLII) the Supreme Court makes two distinctions with respect to construing or interpreting the language of any given limitation statute. The following are the two classifications of limitations language:
- 1) When time runs from “the accrual of the cause of action”
- When time runs from an event which clearly occurs without regard to the injured party’s knowledge, the judge-made discoverability rule may not extend the period the legislature has prescribed Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42 (CanLII).
- 2) When time runs from some other event which can be construed as occurring only when the injured party has knowledge of the injury sustained.
- The judge-made discoverability rule applies only when a cause of action is is construed as occurring only when the injured party has knowledge of the injury sustained Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42 (CanLII).
Policy Rationale
1) Limitation periods foster certainty
“[t]here comes a time . . . when a potential defendant should be secure in his reasonable expectation that he will not be held to account for ancient obligations”(M. (K.), at p. 29)
This concern must be balanced against the unfairness of allowing a wrongdoer to escape liability while the victim of injury continues to suffer the consequences (M. (K.), at p. 29)
2) Limitation periods are intended to help prevent evidence from going stale
limitation periods are intended to help prevent evidence from going stale, to the detriment of the plaintiff or the defendant (M. (K.), at p. 30)
3) Limitation periods are to encourage plaintiffs to be diligent in pursuing their claims
limitation periods serve to encourage diligence on the part of plaintiffs in pursuing their claims (M. (K.), at p. 30).
<headertabs />
