Talk:Real Property (Limitations): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:
In [http://canlii.ca/t/j2hbf Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42 (CanLII)] the court made a clear distinction on how limitation statutes were to be interpreted. The Supreme Court outlines the methods of interpreting statutory limitations language as follows:
In [http://canlii.ca/t/j2hbf Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42 (CanLII)] the court made a clear distinction on how limitation statutes were to be interpreted. The Supreme Court outlines the methods of interpreting statutory limitations language as follows:


Condition (1)
:Condition (1)
::
:: The limitation date is set by a event that happens at a fixed point in time, such as a death.
 
:Condition (2)
:: The limitation date is set by sufficient facts coming to the attention of an injured party that would inform the injured party that a loss has been sustained, this is what the Supreme Court calls "the accrual of the cause of action". (See paragraph 36 in Godfrey)   




{{Author:Shaun D. Harvey}}
{{Author:Shaun D. Harvey}}

Revision as of 18:16, 20 February 2020

WARNING - THIS PAGE CONTAINS PERSONAL OPINIONS AND IS NOT AUTHORITATIVE LAW UNLESS SPECIFICALLY CITED


The Godfrey Test

In Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey, 2019 SCC 42 (CanLII) the court made a clear distinction on how limitation statutes were to be interpreted. The Supreme Court outlines the methods of interpreting statutory limitations language as follows:

Condition (1)
The limitation date is set by a event that happens at a fixed point in time, such as a death.
Condition (2)
The limitation date is set by sufficient facts coming to the attention of an injured party that would inform the injured party that a loss has been sustained, this is what the Supreme Court calls "the accrual of the cause of action". (See paragraph 36 in Godfrey)


Author: Shaun D. Harvey, B.A