Eastland Auto Inc. v. Stiles Auto and Machine et al., 2015 NBQB 12

Judge:Rideout, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick
Case Date:December 18, 2014
Jurisdiction:New Brunswick
Citations:2015 NBQB 12;(2015), 431 N.B.R.(2d) 261 (TD)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Eastland Auto v. Stiles Auto (2015), 431 N.B.R.(2d) 261 (TD);

    431 R.N.-B.(2e) 261; 1124 A.P.R. 261

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.023

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.023

Eastland Auto Inc. (plaintiff) v. Stiles Auto and Machine and Allison H. Stiles (defendants)

(MC-590-12; 2015 NBQB 12; 2015 NBBR 12)

Indexed As: Eastland Auto Inc. v. Stiles Auto and Machine et al.

Répertorié: Eastland Auto Inc. v. Stiles Auto and Machine et al.

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Moncton

Rideout, J.

January 8, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

In May 2012, the plaintiff commenced a small claims action for $25,600 plus interest, alleging that the defendant was liable for conversion respecting a loader backhoe left at the defendant's shop. Alternatively, the plaintiff claimed rental charges for unauthorized use of the backhoe while it was in the defendant's possession between February 2005 and May 2006. At issue was whether the plaintiff's claim was barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9307

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - Mental incompetence - In May 2012, the plaintiff commenced a small claims action against the defendant for conversion of a backhoe, or alternatively, for rental charges for unauthorized use of the backhoe while it was in the defendant's possession between February 2005 and May 2006 - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, held that the claim was statute-barred (Limitation of Actions Act) - The court rejected an argument that the limitation period should be suspended under s. 18 of the Act because of the plaintiff's incapacity - The court held that the plaintiff's obsessive compulsive hoarding disorder fell short of establishing that he was "incapable of bringing the claim" within the meaning of s. 18(1) - See paragraphs 21 to 31.

Prescription - Cote 9307

Suspension de la prescription - Généralités - L'incapacité mentale - [Voir Limitation of Actions - Topic 9307 ].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitation of Actions Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. L-8.5, sect. 2(1), sect. 5, sect. 6 [para. 11]; sect. 9 [para. 13]; sect. 18 [para. 12].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Thomas J. Thompson, for the plaintiff;

John Hughes, for the defendants.

This matter was heard on December 18, 2014, before Rideout, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Moncton, who delivered the following decision on January 8, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP