Kamalanathan v. CAMH, 2019 ONSC 56
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Judge | Kristjanson |
| Citation | 2019 ONSC 56 |
| Date | 03 January 2019 |
| Court | Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada) |
| Docket Number | CV-17-579018, CV-16-565940, CV-17-578559 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
6 practice notes
-
Raun v Shumborski, 2019 ABQB 823
...Dr. Shumborski’s counsel relied on these authorities: Dale v Frank, 2017 ONCA 32; Lorencz v Talukdar, 2017 SKQB 389; Kamalanathan v CAMH, 2019 ONSC 56; Carreno v Park, 2010 ABQB 36 and the previously mentioned Babjak v [38] In Babjak, the plaintiff sued an eye surgeon 23 years after the pro......
-
Vu v. Attorney General of Canada, 2020 ONSC 2447
...a later date. The limitation period runs from the earlier of the subjective and objective knowledge dates: Kamalanathan v. CAMH et al, 2019 ONSC 56, at para. 40 (“Kamalanathan”). [24] Section 5(2) creates a rebuttable presumption that a person with a claim shall be assumed to have known of ......
-
Visic v. Elia Associates,
...of a motion for summary judgment based on the allege expiry of the relevant limitation period, the court in Kamalanathan v. CAMH et al., 2019 ONSC 56, at para. 42, described the onus of the responding plaintiff as Summary judgment motions may by brought be defendants in relation to the appl......
-
Decision Nº ReleasedDecisionsWithSummaryAdded from Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario, 26-06-2020
...v. Slataroff, 2019 HRTO 667 refd to; K.M. v. Kodama, 2014 HRTO 526 refd to; Kamalanathan v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2019 ONSC 56 refd to; M.F. v. Sutherland (2000), 188 D.L.R. (4th) 296 (Ont. C.A.) consd; M.S. v. Albino, 2019 HRTO 1204 refd to; Pouget v. Saint Elizabeth Heal......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 cases
-
Raun v Shumborski, 2019 ABQB 823
...Dr. Shumborski’s counsel relied on these authorities: Dale v Frank, 2017 ONCA 32; Lorencz v Talukdar, 2017 SKQB 389; Kamalanathan v CAMH, 2019 ONSC 56; Carreno v Park, 2010 ABQB 36 and the previously mentioned Babjak v [38] In Babjak, the plaintiff sued an eye surgeon 23 years after the pro......
-
Vu v. Attorney General of Canada, 2020 ONSC 2447
...a later date. The limitation period runs from the earlier of the subjective and objective knowledge dates: Kamalanathan v. CAMH et al, 2019 ONSC 56, at para. 40 (“Kamalanathan”). [24] Section 5(2) creates a rebuttable presumption that a person with a claim shall be assumed to have known of ......
-
Visic v. Elia Associates,
...of a motion for summary judgment based on the allege expiry of the relevant limitation period, the court in Kamalanathan v. CAMH et al., 2019 ONSC 56, at para. 42, described the onus of the responding plaintiff as Summary judgment motions may by brought be defendants in relation to the appl......
-
Preiano v. Cirillo,
...15.01(1), the courts have assumed the application of Rule 2.03 (see, for example: Kamalanathan v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2019 ONSC 56, at para. 16, [59] In Selkirk v Ontario, 2022 ONCA 478, at para. 11 to 15, the Court o......