A limitation period is the amount of time within which the law permits one to bring a legal claim or action. Claims started after a limitation period has ended can be barred. Under the Limitations Act, there is a general two-year limitation period. In family law there are several different limitation periods that prospective and current family law clients should be aware of. Under the Family Law Act, married spouses may make a claim for equalization of net family property within the earliest of (a) two years after the marriage is terminated by divorce or judgement of nullity; (b) six years after the spouses separate and there is no reasonable prospect that they resume cohabitation; or (c) six months after the first spouse’s death. The court may extend the limitation period for bringing an equalization claim, if it is satisfied that (a) there are apparent grounds of relief; (b) relief … Read More
Determining a “Series of Incidents” under Ontario’s Human Rights Code
The recent decision in Martin v Trinity United Church, 2019 HRTO 726 highlights limitation periods and the applicable factors to determine what constitutes a “series of incidents” under Ontario’s Human Rights Code (“Code”). Limitation Period under Ontario’s Code Section 34 of the Code provides that a person who believes that his or her rights under Part I of the Code have been infringed must apply to the Tribunal: (a) Within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or (b) If there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series. Late applications are allowed if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. Determining a “Series of Incidents” In order to establish that discrimination constituted a “series of incidents,” there must be a connection … Read More
Dominican Republic Vacation Claim Examined in Di Gregorio v. Sunwing Vacations Inc.
In Di Gregorio v. Sunwing Vacations Inc., the appellants purchased a vacation package to attend the Dreams Punta Cana Resort and Spa through their travel agent, Sunwing Vacations Inc. (“Sunwing”). While on vacation, the balcony railing gave way resulting in the appellants sustaining injuries. The motion judge was found to have erred in not conducting a jurisdictional analysis pursuant to Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda. The Court of Appeal stated that the relevant connecting factor is that the claim pleaded was based on an Ontario contract. The alleged tortfeasors do not need to be party to the contract, as all that is required is that a “defendant’s conduct brings it within the scope of the contractual relationship and that the events that give rise to the claim flow from the contractual relationship” as stated in Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melancon LLP v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. The Court of … Read More