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
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
9 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......
-
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......
-
Vu v. Attorney General of Canada,
...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 ......
-
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......
Get Started for Free
9 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......
-
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......
-
Vu v. Attorney General of Canada,
...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 ......
-
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......
Get Started for Free