Equitable Set-Off (Limitations): 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.
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Limitations]] | [[Category:Limitations]] | ||
==LV Windows v. 7194145 Canada Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3177 (CanLII)<ref name="LV_Windows"/>== | |||
==LV Windows v. 7194145 Canada Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3177 (CanLII)<ref name=" | |||
[28] Section 111(2) of the Courts of Justice Act provides that mutual debts may be set off against each other, even if they are of a different nature. | [28] Section 111(2) of the Courts of Justice Act provides that mutual debts may be set off against each other, even if they are of a different nature. | ||
Line 27: | Line 25: | ||
===Notes=== | ===Notes=== | ||
* | * <ref name="LV_Windows">LV Windows v. 7194145 Canada Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3177 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j7whs>, retrieved on 2020-06-02<ref/> |
Revision as of 20:26, 2 June 2020
LV Windows v. 7194145 Canada Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3177 (CanLII)[1]
[28] Section 111(2) of the Courts of Justice Act provides that mutual debts may be set off against each other, even if they are of a different nature.
[29] In 1808059 Ontario Ltd. v. Galaxy Entertainment Inc., 2015 ONSC 1214, at para. 17, the court noted that:
- Equitable setoff is an available remedy where a defendant’s cross-claim is liquidated or unliquidated and whether or not it arises out of the same contract. Agway Metals Inc. v. Dufferin Roofing Ltd., [1991] O.J. No. 9, 46 C.P.C. (2d) 133 (Ont. Gen. Div.) aff’d [1994] O.J. No. 3671, 30 C.P.C. (3d) 295 (Ont. C.A.).
[30] In Holt v. Telford, 1987 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 193, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the following preconditions for the granting of the remedy of an equitable set off:
- a) there must be some equitable basis to resist the plaintiff’s claim;
- b) the equitable ground must go to the essence of the plaintiff’s claim; and
- c) it would be manifestly unjust to enforce the plaintiff’s claim without taking into consideration the defendant’s claim.
- See also Spiral Aviation Training Co., LLC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 ONSC 2581, at para. 7.
[31] In Canada Trustco Mortgages Co. v. Pierce Estate (2005), 2005 CanLII 15706 (ON CA), 254 D.L.R. (4th) 79 (Ont. C.A.), the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that an equitable set off provides a complete defence to a statutory limitation period.
Notes
- <ref name="LV_Windows">LV Windows v. 7194145 Canada Ltd., 2020 ONSC 3177 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/j7whs>, retrieved on 2020-06-02Cite error: The opening
<ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; no text was provided for refs namedLV_Windows