Mayer v. Mayer et al., 2015 BCSC 1193
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Judge | Grauer, J. |
| Court | Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) |
| Subject Matter | PRACTICE |
| Citation | 2015 BCSC 1193,[2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1193,[2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1193 (SC) |
| Date | 10 July 2015 |
-
- 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
5 practice notes
-
Sohal v. Lezama,
...way of a separate court action as opposed to a third party proceeding. This argument was based in part on what I said in Mayer v Mayer, 2015 BCSC 1193, about the meaning of “court proceeding” in the context of the application of section 30 of the new Act to amendments to pleadings. The cham......
-
0742848 B.C. Ltd. v. Squamish (District), 2018 BCSC 1046
...on December 17, 2010. [30] Although the transition provision in the New Act was considered by Justice Grauer in Mayer v. Mayer, 2015 BCSC 1193, that decision is not directly applicable here as there was no issue about whether a claim was pre-existing. The parties were not able to refer me t......
-
Sohal v. Lezama, 2019 BCSC 1709
...decision of Master Taylor in support of that proposition. They also rely in that regard upon the decision of Grauer J. in Mayer v. Mayer, 2015 BCSC 1193. [64] Mayer considered the transition provisions of the new Limitation Act and the meaning of the phrase "no court proceeding has been com......
-
Hutchison v. Moore, 2019 BCSC 1479
...claim as if the right to bring an action occurred at the time of the discovery of the pre-existing claim. [43] In Mayer v. Mayer, 2015 BCSC 1193, the court concluded that a claim discovered before the 2013 Act was governed by the 1996 Act. The court stated at para. …What the legislature did......
Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
-
Sohal v. Lezama,
...way of a separate court action as opposed to a third party proceeding. This argument was based in part on what I said in Mayer v Mayer, 2015 BCSC 1193, about the meaning of “court proceeding” in the context of the application of section 30 of the new Act to amendments to pleadings. The cham......
-
0742848 B.C. Ltd. v. Squamish (District), 2018 BCSC 1046
...on December 17, 2010. [30] Although the transition provision in the New Act was considered by Justice Grauer in Mayer v. Mayer, 2015 BCSC 1193, that decision is not directly applicable here as there was no issue about whether a claim was pre-existing. The parties were not able to refer me t......
-
Sohal v. Lezama, 2019 BCSC 1709
...decision of Master Taylor in support of that proposition. They also rely in that regard upon the decision of Grauer J. in Mayer v. Mayer, 2015 BCSC 1193. [64] Mayer considered the transition provisions of the new Limitation Act and the meaning of the phrase "no court proceeding has been com......
-
Hutchison v. Moore, 2019 BCSC 1479
...claim as if the right to bring an action occurred at the time of the discovery of the pre-existing claim. [43] In Mayer v. Mayer, 2015 BCSC 1193, the court concluded that a claim discovered before the 2013 Act was governed by the 1996 Act. The court stated at para. …What the legislature did......
Request a trial to view additional results