Moffett v. Farnsworth, (1984) 6 O.A.C. 241 (DC)

Judge:Southey, Hollingworth and Rosenberg, JJ.
Court:Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
Case Date:June 07, 1984
Jurisdiction:Ontario
Citations:(1984), 6 O.A.C. 241 (DC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Moffett v. Farnsworth (1984), 6 O.A.C. 241 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Moffett and Moffett v. Farnsworth and Farnsworth

Indexed As: Moffett v. Farnsworth

Ontario Divisional Court

Southey, Hollingworth and Rosenberg, JJ.

August 24, 1984.

Summary:

The infant plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident. They commenced an action within the two year limitation periods prescribed in the Family Law Reform Act and the Highway Traffic Act. The writ of summons did not refer to a claim for damages under s. 60 of the Family Law Reform Act. After the expiry of the two year limitation periods the infants' father applied to be added as a party plaintiff for the purpose of asserting a claim under s. 60. The father's request was granted. The defendants appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order adding the father as a party plaintiff notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation periods.

Practice - Topic 605

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - General principles - Application of limitation periods - The Ontario Divisional Court discussed when a party could be added to an action where the party's claim as a separate action was statute barred - See paragraphs 1 to 95.

Practice - Topic 653

Parties - Adding or substituting parties - Plaintiffs - Application of limitation periods - Family Law Reform Act and Highway Traffic Act (Ont.) - The Ontario Divisional Court affirmed the addition of a father as a party plaintiff in his children's negligence action for the purpose of the father claiming damages under s. 60 of the Family Law Reform Act, notwithstanding that the father's claim as a separate action was statute barred under the Family Law Reform Act and the Highway Traffic Act - See paragraphs 1 to 95.

Cases Noticed:

Basarsky v. Quinlan, [1972] S.C.R. 380; 24 D.L.R.(3d) 720; [1972] 1 W.W.R. 303, folld. [paras. 7, 64].

Lambkin v. Chapeskie (1983), 37 C.P.C. 158, refd to. [para. 10].

Juda v. Patterson (1982), 39 O.R.(2d) 737, refd to. [para. 33].

Vasiliou v. Liston (1982), 29 C.P.C. 239, refd to. [para. 33].

Brar v. Hewett et al. (1982), 15 A.C.W.S.(2d) 367, refd to. [para. 33].

Ward v. Wetton et al. (1983), 33 C.P.C. 11, refd to. [para. 33].

Brennan v. Powell (1983), 18 A.C.W.S.(2d) 236, refd to. [para. 33].

Kurzwernhart v. Soaring Association of Canada et al. (1983), 34 C.P.C. 325, refd to. [para. 33].

Martin v. Wright (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 317; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 335; 43 C.P.C. 95, refd to. [paras. 33, 84].

Seghers v. Double A. Farms Ltd. et al. (1984), 46 O.R.(2d) 258; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 273, refd to. [para. 33].

Goulais v. Pepin (1984), 39 C.P.C. 189, refd to. [paras. 34, 83].

Newton v. Serre (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 314; 6 D.L.R.(4th) 320; 42 C.P.C. 284, refd to. [paras. 36, 62].

Racz v. Rogers et al. (1983), 19 A.C.W.S. 471, refd to. [para. 36].

Roeder v. Collins et al. (1984), 44 O.R.(2d) 626, refd to. [paras. 37, 73].

Clarapede v. Commercial Union Ass'n (1884), 38 W.R. 262, refd to. [para. 54].

Weldon v. Neal (1887), 19 Q.B.D. 394, refd to. [para. 63].

Ladouceur v. Howard (1973), 41 D.L.R.(3d) 416, refd to. [para. 66].

Witco Chemical Co. Canada Ltd. v. Town of Oakville (1974), 43 D.L.R.(3d) 413, refd to. [para. 68].

Pontin v. Wood, [1962] 1 E.R. 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Nelson v. Maglio (1964), 44 D.L.R.(2d) 484, refd to. [para. 69].

Palermo Bakery Ltd. and Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. et al., Re (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 50, refd to. [para. 74].

Western Canadian Greyhound Lines Ltd. v. Pomerleau et al., [1955] 4 D.L.R. 133, refd to. [para. 75].

MacKenzie et al. v. Schluter (1967), 65 D.L.R.(2d) 540, refd to. [para. 76].

Board of Com'rs of Police of Township of London v. Western Freight Lines Ltd. et al., [1962] O.R. 948, refd to. [para. 77].

Accaputo v. Simanovskis, [1973] 3 O.R. 368, refd to. [para. 79].

Ontario Hospital Services Com'n et al. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, [1969] 1 O.R. 666 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 81].

Ontario Hospital Services Com'n v. Barsoski, [1973] 3 O.R. 721, refd to. [para. 81].

Canadian Motor Sales Corp. Ltd. v. The Ship "Madonna" et al., 24 D.L.R.(3d) 573, refd to. [para. 82].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 152, sect. 2(5) [para. 18]; sect. 60 [para. 6]; sect. 60(4) [para. 5].

Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 164, sect. 5 [para. 26].

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 202, sect. 146 [para. 25].

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 198, sect. 180(1) [paras. 5, 25].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Discussion Paper on Proposed Limitations Act, Ministry of the Attorney General (Ont., 1977) [para. 60].

Watson, Garry, D., Amendments of Proceedings After Limitation Periods (1975), 53 Can. Bar Rev. 237, pp. 240 [para. 56]; 250 [para. 69].

Counsel:

S.H. Fay, for the Farnsworths;

William Morris, Q.C., for the Moffetts.

This appeal was heard on June 7, 1984, before Southey, Hollingworth and Rosenberg, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of the Divisional Court was released on August 24, 1984, and the following opinions were filed:

Southey, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 42;

Rosenberg, J. - see paragraphs 43 to 95.

Hollingworth, J., concurred with Southey, J.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP