Jurkojc v. Fras, (1998) 53 O.T.C. 101 (GD)

• Judge: Ground, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: December 05, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 53 O.T.C. 101 (GD)

Jurkojc v. Fras (1998), 53 O.T.C. 101 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. JA.086

Maria Jurkojc, Cathy Jurkojc, Anna Jurkojc by her litigation guardian, Carolyn V. Amendola, Aniela Jurkojc, Jan Jurkojc, Barbara Jurkojc and Anna Jurkojc (plaintiffs) v. George Fras (defendant)

(File No. 96-CU-100026)

Indexed As: Jurkojc v. Fras

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Ground, J.

January 19, 1998.

Summary:

In March 1990, Jurkojc died in a fall while performing carpentry work on the defendant's premises. In October 1992, counsel for Jurkojc's family notified the defendant's insurer of the intention to advance a claim on behalf of Jurkojc's wife and his children under the Family Law Act (the Act). In March 1996, Jurkojc's wife, children, siblings, parents and grandmother issued a statement of claim against the defendant. The claims of all of the adult plaintiffs except the wife were subsequently dismissed. The defendant then applied to dismiss the claim of the infant plaintiffs as being statute barred by s. 61(4) of the Act (two year limitation period).

The Ontario Court (General Division) held that the children's actions were not statute barred by s. 61(4). Section 47 of the Limitations Act operated to extend the limitation period for the infant plaintiffs under the Act. The court stated that had the actions been statute barred by s. 61(4), it would not have permitted an extension under s. 2(8) of the Act where the plaintiff failed to show that the delay was incurred in good faith or that the defendant would not suffer prejudice by the delay.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 304

Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - See paragraphs 39 to 47.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 1906

Actions - General - Derivative actions - See paragraphs 10 to 29.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9051

Persons under disability and exemptions and exclusions - Infants - Application of limitation periods - See paragraphs 10 to 29.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9612

Enlargement of time period - Application for - When available - See paragraphs 30 to 48.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9616

Enlargement of time period - Application for - Special circumstances - See paragraphs 39 to 47.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9618

Enlargement of time period - Application for - Explanation for delay - Solicitor's inadvertence - See paragraphs 32 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Coplen Estate et al. v. Bauman et al. (1989), 36 O.A.C. 321; 71 O.R.(2d) 308 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Martin v. Listowel Memorial Hospital et al. (1992), 56 O.A.C. 337; 9 O.R.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Von Cramm v. Riverside Hospital, Andres and Wills (1986), 17 O.A.C. 218; 56 O.R.(2d) 700; 32 D.L.R.(4th) 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Stoddard v. Watson - see Murphy v. Welsh.

Murphy v. Welsh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069; 156 N.R. 263; 65 O.A.C. 103; 106 D.L.R.(4th) 404, addendum 157 N.R. 372; 66 O.A.C. 240, refd to. [para. 14].

Reddy v. Oshawa Flying Club (1992), 11 C.P.C.(3d) 154 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 15].

Toner v. Cherrington (1993), 64 O.A.C. 50; 13 O.R.(3d) 617 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Smith Estate v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (1996), 13 O.T.C. 391; 139 D.L.R.(4th) 523 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 20].

Aguonie v. Galion Solid Waste Material Inc. et al. (1997), 34 O.T.C. 28; 33 O.R.(3d) 615 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 21].

Perez et al. v. Salvation Army et al. (1997), 49 O.T.C. 135 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 22].

Daviault v. Canadian Motorcycle Association, [1986] O.J. No. 1392 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Woolford v. Lockhart (1985), 2 C.P.C.(2d) 16 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Mirecki v. Lubiana (1984), 46 C.P.C. 170 (Ont. H.C.), not folld. [para. 36].

Moffett v. Farnsworth (1984), 6 O.A.C. 241; 47 O.R.(2d) 620 (Div. Ct.), not folld. [para. 37].

Deaville v. Boegeman (1984), 6 O.A.C. 297; 48 O.R.(2d) 725 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Canadian Tire Corporation v. Summers et al. (1995), 23 O.R.(3d) 106 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 52].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3, sect. 2(8) [para. 7]; sect. 61(4) [para. 6].

Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L-15, sect. 47 [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Watson, Gary D., Canadian Bar Review, Duplicative Litigation: Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process and the Death of Mutuality, p. 627 [para. 51].

Counsel:

Carolyn V. Amendola, for the plaintiffs/respondents;

David M. José, for the defendant/moving party.

This motion was heard on December 5, 1997, by Ground, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following judgment on January 19, 1998.