Lynn et al. v. Central Electric Ltd., (2003) 338 A.R. 187 (QBM)

Court:Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
Case Date:April 08, 2003
Jurisdiction:Alberta
Citations:(2003), 338 A.R. 187 (QBM);2003 ABQB 333
 
FREE EXCERPT

Lynn v. Central Electric Ltd. (2003), 338 A.R. 187 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. MY.024

Robert Lynn, Ken Sieben, Elver Olsen, Arthur Thormann, Frank Geweth, Reg Morris, Larry Gatner and George Chatschaturian (plaintiffs) v. Central Electric Ltd. (defendant)

(0201-03332; 2003 ABQB 333)

Indexed As: Lynn et al. v. Central Electric Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Laycock, Master in Chambers

April 14, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiffs applied for leave to amend their statement of claim. The defendant objected to the amendment, claiming that the plaintiffs' cause of action was barred by the Limitations Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - The plaintiffs applied for leave to amend their statement of claim - The defendant argued that the plaintiffs' action was barred by the Limitations Act - In 1999, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant had breached a collective agree­ment and they performed an audit of all the defendant's payroll and employment records (completed in May 2000) - The statement of claim was filed in February 2002 - The plaintiffs argued that it was not until the completion of the audit that they knew that the injury warranted bringing a proceeding - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The plain­tiffs knew or ought to have known in 1999 that the breach was significant and war­ranted action - The plaintiffs were out of time when they filed their statement of claim.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - Discoverability rule - [See Limi­tation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Practice - Topic 2143

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Circumstances when amendment denied - [See Limitation of Actions - Topic 15 ].

Cases Noticed:

Boudreault v. Barrett et al. (1995), 174 A.R. 71; 102 W.A.C. 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Huet v. Lynch - see V.A.H. v. Lynch et al.

V.A.H. v. Lynch et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 359; 220 W.A.C. 359; 184 D.L.R.(4th) 658 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Cana­dian Commercial Bank (2000), 269 A.R. 49 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Madill v. Alexander Consulting Group Ltd. et al. (1999), 237 A.R. 307; 197 W.A.C. 307; 176 D.L.R.(4th) 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

Jordan R. McJanet (Fraser Milner LLP), for the plaintiffs;

Brian J. Thiessen (Blake Cassels Graydon LLP), for the defendant.

This application was heard on April 8, 2003, by Laycock, Master, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following deci­sion on April 14, 2003.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP