Talk:Real Property (Limitations)
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
| 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 Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15 to be expressed. The language of section 42 reads:
- 42 Where land or rent is vested in a trustee upon an express trust, the right of the beneficiary of the trust or a person claiming through the beneficiary to bring an action against the trustee or a person claiming through the trustee to recover the land or rent, shall be deemed to have first accrued, according to the meaning of this Act, at and not before the time at which the land or rent has been conveyed to a purchaser for a valuable consideration, and shall then be deemed to have accrued only as against such purchaser and any person claiming through the purchaser.
Author: Shaun D. Harvey, B.A
