Joseph v. Paramount Can.'s Wonderland,
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Judge | Feldman, MacFarland and Watt, JJ.A. |
Neutral Citation | 2008 ONCA 469 |
Citation | 2008 ONCA 469,(2008), 241 O.A.C. 29 (CA),90 OR (3d) 401,294 DLR (4th) 141,[2008] CarswellOnt 349,[2008] OJ No 2339 (QL),166 ACWS (3d) 762,241 OAC 29,56 CPC (6th) 14,241 O.A.C. 29,(2008), 241 OAC 29 (CA),90 O.R. (3d) 401,[2008] O.J. No 2339 (QL),294 D.L.R. (4th) 141 |
Date | 07 February 2008 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
Joseph v. Paramount Can.'s Wonderland (2008), 241 O.A.C. 29 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2008] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.064
Innez Joseph (plaintiff/respondent) v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland (defendant/appellant)
(C47671; 2008 ONCA 469)
Indexed As: Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland
Ontario Court of Appeal
Feldman, MacFarland and Watt, JJ.A.
June 12, 2008.
Summary:
The plaintiff was injured at the defendant's amusement park. Through inadvertence, the plaintiff's statement of claim against the defendant was not issued until after the expiry of the applicable two-year limitation provided by s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B. The defendant moved, under rule 21.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), to determine, as a question of law, whether the action was statute barred.
The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2007] O.T.C. Uned..K50, ruled that it had discretion under the doctrine of special circumstances to extend the time to commence an action where no action had commenced within the limitation period. The defendant appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The doctrine of special circumstances did not apply. The action was statute barred.
Limitation of Actions - Topic 9616
Enlargement of time period - Application for - Special circumstances - The plaintiff was injured at the defendant's amusement park - Through inadvertence, the plaintiff's statement of claim against the defendant was not issued until after the expiry of the applicable two-year limitation provided by s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B - This raised the issue of whether the doctrine of special circumstances applied to authorize an extension of the time to commence an action - Section 20 of the Act provided as follows: "This Act does not affect the extension, suspension or other variation of a limitation period or other time limit by or under another Act" - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of special circumstances did not apply - The requirement in s. 20 that the extension must be "by or under another Act" clearly precluded any extension that could be granted at common law as opposed to statute - See paragraphs 1 to 29.
Cases Noticed:
Meady et al. v. Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp. et al. (2008), 240 O.A.C. 188 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].
St. Denis v. TD Insurance Home and Auto Liberty Insurance Co. of Canada, [2005] O.T.C. 924; 80 O.R.(3d) 76 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 1].
Doyley v. York Condominium Corp. No. 478 et al., [2006] O.T.C. 828; 82 O.R.(3d) 629 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 1].
Munshaw v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 265; 84 O.R.(3d) 785 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 1].
York Condominium Corp. No. 382 v. Jay-M Holdings Ltd. et al. (2007), 220 O.A.C. 311; 84 O.R.(3d) 414 (C.A.), consd. [para. 8].
Basarsky v. Quinlan, [1972] S.C.R. 380, consd. [para. 10].
Weldon v. Neal (1887), 19 Q.B.D. 394, refd to. [para. 10].
Mazzuca v. Silvercreek Pharmacy Ltd. (2001), 152 O.A.C. 201; 56 O.R.(3d) 768 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].
Guillemette v. Doucet (2007), 230 O.A.C. 202; 88 O.R.(3d) 90 (C.A.), consd. [para. 18].
Iroquois Falls Power Corp. v. Jacobs Canada Inc. et al. (2008), 235 O.A.C. 260; 2008 ONCA 320, consd. [para. 20, footnote 2].
Statutes Noticed:
Limitations Act, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Schedule B, sect. 4 [para. 8]; sect. 20 [para. 9].
Counsel:
Todd J. McCarthy and Colleen E. Arsenault, for the appellant;
Tony Afecto, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on February 7, 2008, by Feldman, MacFarland and Watt, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Feldman, J.A., and released on June 12, 2008.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., (2015) 346 O.A.C. 204 (SCC)
...v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 95]. Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland (2008), 241 O.A.C. 29; 90 O.R.(3d) 401; 2008 ONCA 469, refd to. [para. 108]. Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services et al. v. Langston et al. (2009), 250 O.A......
-
Green et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., (2015) 478 N.R. 202 (SCC)
...v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 95]. Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland (2008), 241 O.A.C. 29; 90 O.R.(3d) 401; 2008 ONCA 469, refd to. [para. 108]. Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services et al. v. Langston et al. (2009), 250 O.A......
-
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, [2015] 3 SCR 801
...R. 303 ; Reza v. Canada, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394 ; Soulos v. Korkontzilas, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217 ; Joseph v. Paramount Canada’s Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469, 90 O.R. (3d) 401 ; Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services v. Langston, 2009 ONCA 196 , 94 O.R. (3d) 401 ; Dugal v. Manulife Financial Cor......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 21 24, 2019)
...Protection Act, RSO 1990, c E.19, Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, Sched B, ss 5, 17, Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469 FACTS: The appellant, Strathan Corporation, is the owner and landlord of a commercial property located in Windsor. Chromeshield Co., Chromecraft ......
-
Green et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., (2015) 346 O.A.C. 204 (SCC)
...v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 95]. Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland (2008), 241 O.A.C. 29; 90 O.R.(3d) 401; 2008 ONCA 469, refd to. [para. 108]. Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services et al. v. Langston et al. (2009), 250 O.A......
-
Green et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., (2015) 478 N.R. 202 (SCC)
...v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 95]. Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland (2008), 241 O.A.C. 29; 90 O.R.(3d) 401; 2008 ONCA 469, refd to. [para. 108]. Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services et al. v. Langston et al. (2009), 250 O.A......
-
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, [2015] 3 SCR 801
...R. 303 ; Reza v. Canada, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394 ; Soulos v. Korkontzilas, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217 ; Joseph v. Paramount Canada’s Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469, 90 O.R. (3d) 401 ; Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services v. Langston, 2009 ONCA 196 , 94 O.R. (3d) 401 ; Dugal v. Manulife Financial Cor......
-
Saltsov et al. v. Rolnick, (2010) 262 O.A.C. 299 (DC)
...to. [para. 109]. Shaw v. Embury, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. J27 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 109]. Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland (2008), 241 O.A.C. 29; 2008 ONCA 469, refd to [para. Fritsch v. Magee, [2009] O.T.C. Uned. D77; 2009 CarswellOnt 3345 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 116]. Xpress V......
-
Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (May 21 24, 2019)
...Protection Act, RSO 1990, c E.19, Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, Sched B, ss 5, 17, Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469 FACTS: The appellant, Strathan Corporation, is the owner and landlord of a commercial property located in Windsor. Chromeshield Co., Chromecraft ......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 3 7, 2014)
...excused in "special circumstances" where there is no prejudice. The court had already decided in Joseph v Paramount Caanda's Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469, 90 OR (3d) 401 that the special circumstances doctrine did not apply to the Limitations Act, Tags: Tort, Occupier's Liability, Breach of Du......
-
Top 5 Civil Appeals From The Court Of Appeal (June 2014)
...the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, s. 1.03(1) and, pursuant to its decision in Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469, 90 O.R. (3d) 401, the doctrine of special circumstances does not allow a party to commence a third party claim after the expiration of a l......
-
Limits To Limitations: The Ontario Court Of Appeal Addresses The Doctrines Of 'Fraudulent Concealment' And 'Special Circumstances'
...will be suffered by the other side. The Ontario Court of Appeal had previously ruled — in Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469 — that this doctrine has no application under the current general Limitations Act, 2002. One issue before the Court was whether the doctrine never......
-
Year in review: developments in Canadian law in 2008.
...Corp., 2008 ONCA 468 [Meady v. Greyhound]. (342) St. Jean, supra note 339 at para. 31. (343) Joseph v. Canada's Wonderland, 2008 ONCA 469. (344) St Denis v. TD Insurance Home and Auto liberty Insurance Co of Canada (2005), 80 O.R. (3d) 76 (SCJ); Doyley v. York Condominium Corp. (2006), 82 O......