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 |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:Condition (2) | :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) | :: 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) | ||
The question I propose to answer is, under what condition above is section 42 of the | |||
{{Author:Shaun D. Harvey}} | {{Author:Shaun D. Harvey}} | ||
Revision as of 18:18, 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)
The question I propose to answer is, under what condition above is section 42 of the
Author: Shaun D. Harvey, B.A
