Talk:Real Property (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.
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
