Sentences with phrase «year limitation period where»

It may in certain circumstances extend the normal two - year limitation period where an injured person did not know the full extent of their injury at the time of the accident.

Not exact matches

For instance, where buses are owned by government institutions in British Columbia a six month limitation period will apply as opposed to the regular two year limitation period.

The Bill introduces a single publication rule to prevent repeat actions over the same or similar material by the same publisher — for example, where material is published online — with a one - year limitation period.

But now, where such a claim was discovered on or after January 1, 2004, it is subject to the two - year limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002.

Such latent health and safety violations appear to be the principle reason for the alteration of the limitation period, and can reasonably be characterized as the government response to cases such as an unsuccessful OHSA prosecution involving the Corporation of the City of Guelph, (2012 ONCJ 251 (CanLII)-RRB-, where a wall in a municipal building collapsed and tragically killed a student five years after the wall was built.

The limitation period could also be extended if a key witness comes forward or new information is discovered following the one - year limitation, though the new information would have to provide evidence of an offence where there was no such evidence previously.

This case is the third case that we have recently blogged about, where one party has taken the position that the other party's claim is barred because legal proceedings were commenced after expiry of the two - year limitation period set out in the Statute of Limitations.

accidents where the Crown authority may be involved) the standard limitation period for commencing a claim will be 2 years from the date of the accident (See www.bclaws.ca).

Any complaints where the conduct occurred during or after 2002, and the service to which the complaint relates has not expired / been terminated more than six years ago can avail of this new limitation period.

Statute of Limitations and Real Property Limitations Act — We blogged about a number of cases (Tarko v. MTCC No. 626, MTCC No. 659 v. Truman and TSCC 1487 v. Market Lofts Inc.) in the past year where one party took the position that the other party's claim was barred because the legal proceedings were commenced after the expiry of the limitation period set out in the applicable limitations statute.

Where a claim is brought more than three years after the injury occurred (or more than three years after the date the claimant had knowledge of it) and is thus time - barred, the court has a discretion under s 19A to disapply the limitation period and allow the claim to proceed, if it is equitable to do so.

Courts have authority to consider new evidence of actual innocence without regard to the statutory one - year limitation period for newly discovered evidence, and that the standard for granting a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence should not be a strict «outcome - determinative» test, at least where the state relied at trial upon facts that turned out to be false.

The High Court decision follows hard on the heals of the House of Lords» decision [2008] UKHL 6; [2008] 2 WLR 311, [2008] 2 All ER 1, of 30 January 2008, where the law lords effectively changed the law, (reversing a previous House of Lords» ruling in Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, 1993] 1 All ER 322, which held that claims arising from intentional assaults were governed by s 2 of LA 1980), and held that an intentional assault fell within LA 1980, s 11, and was therefore subject to a three - year limitation period, which could be extended by reference to knowledge (s 14), or at the court's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the court.

Where, as a result of a circumstance which is beyond the control of the creditor and which he could neither avoid nor overcome, the creditor has been prevented from causing the limitation period to cease to run, the limitation period shall be extended so as not to expire before the expiration of one year from the date on which the relevant circumstance ceased to exist.

The motion judge, who has case managed the action for several years, concluded that the limitation period statutes do not encompass an action based on breach of fiduciary duty where the act of professional practice or experimentation is torture.