Deaville v. Boegeman, (1984) 6 O.A.C. 297 (CA)

• Judge: MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Zuber and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: November 06, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1984), 6 O.A.C. 297 (CA);1984 CanLII 1925 (ON CA);1984 CanLII 1925 (NS CA);48 OR (2d) 725;14 DLR (4th) 81;[1984] OJ No 3403 (QL);28 ACWS (2d) 413;30 MVR 227;47 CPC 285;6 OAC 297

Deaville v. Boegeman (1984), 6 O.A.C. 297 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Deaville v. Boegeman

Indexed As: Deaville v. Boegeman

Ontario Court of Appeal

MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Zuber and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.

December 3, 1984.

Summary:

A plaintiff in a negligence action applied to add her two children as party plaintiffs. The application was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 653

Parties - Adding plaintiffs - Application of limitation periods - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the expiry of a limitation period creates a presumption of prejudice to the defendant - See paragraph 20.

Practice - Topic 653

Parties - Adding plaintiffs - Application of limitation periods - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that on an application to add a party plaintiff, after the expiry of a limitation period, "special circumstances" must be shown notwithstanding any statutory conditions to the extension of limitation periods - See paragraphs 16 and 17.

Practice - Topic 653

Parties - Adding plaintiffs - Application of limitation periods - After the expiry of the relevant limitation periods, the plaintiff in a negligence action applied to add her two children as plaintiffs for purposes of a claim under the Family Law Reform Act - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed a dismissal of the application - The court stated that the plaintiff "clearly abandoned" the children's claims by taking several steps in the proceeding after mentioning the claim to the defendant and before making an application to add the children as plaintiffs - See paragraph 21.

Cases Noticed:

Basarsky v. Quinlan (1971), 24 D.L.R.(3d) 720, refd to. [para. 9].

Tolson v. Kaye (1822), 3 Brod. B. 217, refd to. [para. 19].

A'Court v. Cross (1825), 3 Bing. 329, refd to. [para. 19].

Hunter v. Gibbons (1856), 26 L.J. Ex. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Scales v. Jacob (1826), 3 Bing. 638, refd to. [para. 19].

Smith v. Clay (1767), 3 Bro. C.C. 639n, refd to. [para. 19].

Murray v. The East India Company (1821), 5 B. & Ald. 204, refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 152, sect. 2(5) [para. 16].

Rules of Practice (Ont.), rule 246(4) [para. 22].

Counsel:

David S. Thompson, for the appellant, Deaville;

Peter W. Kryworuk, for the respondent, Boegeman.

This appeal was heard by MacKinnon, A.C.J.O, Zuber and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on November 6, 1984. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., and was released on December 3, 1984.