The charges against the architect and engineer were dismissed on the basis that they were not instituted within the one
year limitation period under the OHSA.
Therefore, a claim based on an intentional sexual assault was subject to a non-extendable six -
year limitation period under s 2.
Any such policy that permits destruction within much less than ten years after an event probably fails to take reasonable account of the standard six
year limitation period under the Limitations Act for actions in tort or contract, plus some period to allow for a discoverability period, which allows for discovery of the damage and those responsible prior to the commencement of the limitation period.
The two -
year limitation period under the insurance policy to bring an action had not elapsed as in Woodman.
Based on the factums submitted to the SCC, the appellant (Yugraneft) is arguing that international arbitral awards should be considered, at least for enforcement purposes, equivalent to foreign judgments, and, as such, should benefit from the 10 -
year limitation period under s. 11 of the Alberta Limitations Act.
In Yugraneft, there is no such issue, as domestic arbitral awards are subject to a mandatory two -
year limitation period under the Alberta Arbitration Act, and the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that international arbitral awards are also subject to a two - year limitation period.
Many clients focus on the «standard» six
year limitation period under the catch - all provision of The Limitation of Actions Act.
This is longer than the current legislation in some provinces, and longer than the two -
year limitation period under the existing Uniform Arbitration Act.
Not exact matches
In the event of an ownership change, utilization of our pre-change NOLs would be subject to annual
limitation under Section 382 determined by multiplying the value of our stock at the time of the ownership change by the applicable long - term tax - exempt rate, increased in the five -
year period following such ownership change by «recognized built - in gains»
under certain circumstances.
Actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied by forward - looking statements based on a number of factors, including, without
limitation: (1) risks related to the consummation of the Merger, including the risks that (a) the Merger may not be consummated within the anticipated time
period, or at all, (b) the parties may fail to obtain shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement, (c) the parties may fail to secure the termination or expiration of any waiting
period applicable
under the HSR Act, (d) other conditions to the consummation of the Merger
under the Merger Agreement may not be satisfied, (e) all or part of Arby's financing may not become available, and (f) the significant
limitations on remedies contained in the Merger Agreement may limit or entirely prevent BWW from specifically enforcing Arby's obligations
under the Merger Agreement or recovering damages for any breach by Arby's; (2) the effects that any termination of the Merger Agreement may have on BWW or its business, including the risks that (a) BWW's stock price may decline significantly if the Merger is not completed, (b) the Merger Agreement may be terminated in circumstances requiring BWW to pay Arby's a termination fee of $ 74 million, or (c) the circumstances of the termination, including the possible imposition of a 12 - month tail
period during which the termination fee could be payable upon certain subsequent transactions, may have a chilling effect on alternatives to the Merger; (3) the effects that the announcement or pendency of the Merger may have on BWW and its business, including the risks that as a result (a) BWW's business, operating results or stock price may suffer, (b) BWW's current plans and operations may be disrupted, (c) BWW's ability to retain or recruit key employees may be adversely affected, (d) BWW's business relationships (including, customers, franchisees and suppliers) may be adversely affected, or (e) BWW's management's or employees» attention may be diverted from other important matters; (4) the effect of
limitations that the Merger Agreement places on BWW's ability to operate its business, return capital to shareholders or engage in alternative transactions; (5) the nature, cost and outcome of pending and future litigation and other legal proceedings, including any such proceedings related to the Merger and instituted against BWW and others; (6) the risk that the Merger and related transactions may involve unexpected costs, liabilities or delays; (7) other economic, business, competitive, legal, regulatory, and / or tax factors; and (8) other factors described
under the heading «Risk Factors» in Part I, Item 1A of BWW's Annual Report on Form 10 - K for the fiscal
year ended December 25, 2016, as updated or supplemented by subsequent reports that BWW has filed or files with the SEC.
However, all of this changed last
year when the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland, 1 a case in which,
under Ontario's new Limitations Act, the plaintiff's attorney failed to issue the statement of claim within the
limitation period.2 The Court of Appeal unanimously eliminated any discretion that the court had to extend
limitation periods based on «special circumstances» and held, subject to only a few exceptions, that the expiry of the two -
year limitation period in Ontario is a complete bar to a lawsuit.
The deadline for filing suit
under ERISA for denial of long term disability benefits is established by the State's statute of
limitations for contract claims (usually a
period of two
years to six
years).
In Illinois, if the person was
under the age of eighteen when the malpractice occurred, the
limitation period is eight
years from the date of the alleged malpractice, or until the minor turns 22.
On the first issue, their lordships unanimously held that such claims are not subject to the non-extendable six -
year limitation period (running from the date the cause of action accrued) under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1
limitation period (running from the date the cause of action accrued)
under the
Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1
Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), s 2.
Whether a claim will come back to haunt you in retirement depends on the application of
limitation periods, which can be affected by issues like delayed discoverability and whether potential claimants have been
under a disability during the intervening
years.
As framed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, there were three issues presented on the appeal: (1) whether the appellant, as a former employee of Pitney Bowes, was entitled to coverage
under the Manulife Policy; (2) whether the appellant submitted a timely proof of claim; and (3) whether the one -
year contractual
limitation period in the policy barred the appellant's claim.
The applicable
limitation period for alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and misrepresentation
under the Limitations Act, 2002 is two
years.
The motion judge held that the provision in the policy limiting coverage to claims made within one
year of the loss did not override the statutory two -
year limitation period set out in s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24 lacked specificity to override the statutory
limitation period and that in any event, the contract of insurance was not a «business agreement» as required
under s. 22 (5) of the Limitations Act, 2002.
Regulation 676, s. 8 (3)
under the Ontario Insurance Act provides that the
limitation period for a claim
under uninsured motorist coverage is two
years from when the cause of action arises.
Ordinary claims,
under the Property Law Act, may be made within 6
years; the usual
limitation period.
Accordingly, this case indicates that, generally speaking, enforcement of unregistered liens arising
under such agreements may very well be subject to the 10
year limitation period prescribed by the RPLA.
In the recent case of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1487 v. Market Lofts Inc., («TSCC No. 1487 v. Market Lofts»), the Court found that the 10
year limitation period prescribed by the RPLA is applicable to actions by parties to a shared facilities agreement for any default in payment
under that agreement.
The boat company retorted that
under the Convention the claim was barred because of the the two -
year limitation period.
In Petrella v. Metro - Goldwyn - Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that the equitable defense of laches is not available when a copyright owner brings a claim for damages
under the Copyright Act within the Act's three -
year statute of
limitations period.
8/16/07, increases the
limitation period to ten
years for actions
under this Act.
An alternative claim for a monetary award also shelters
under the 10 -
year limitation period.
As the payment of unpaid amounts
under the Shared Services Agreement was secured by a lien enforceable in the same manner as a mortgage in default, the condominium corporation's claim fell
under the Real Property Limitations Act, which has «a ten -
year limitation period for an action to recover out of any land any sum of money secured by a lien or otherwise charged upon or payable out of the land.»
In any such case, if the person entitled to bring the action was at the time the personal injury, death, or property damage occurred
under the age of 18
years,
under legal disability, or imprisoned on criminal charges and the claim is not against the Illinois Department of Corrections or any past or present employee, the
limitation period does not begin to run until the person reaches the age of 18, the disability is removed, or the person ceases to be imprisoned.
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.
The question was therefore whether, in relation to the charity shell scheme, the claimants took the benefit of an extended
limitation period under s 14A of LA 1980, on the grounds that they did not acquire both the knowledge required for bringing an action and a right to bring such an action any time before three
years before the claim was issued.
Discoverability may apply to the two -
year limitation period for private actions
under the Competition Act, but does not apply to the effects of a conspiracy, as they are not a part of the offence, the Federal Court of Appeal held.
There are
limitation periods under the FLA, however: you must bring your equalization claim within six
years of the date of separation, two
years from the date of divorce, or six months from the date of the spouse's death, whichever date comes sooner.
While claims asserted
under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Equal Pay Act (EPA) typically do not permit emotional distress damages and limit punitive damages (also known as «liquidated damages») to the amount of the back pay award, they carry a two (2)-
year limitations period which can be extended to three (3)
years in the case of a willful violation.
You have a positive obligation to establish coverage
under the ICBC policy and you only have a one -
year limitation period to sue ICBC over their decision to deny after the denial is initially made.
You have a two -
year limitation period after the accident, or after the last payment
under Part VII, to bring a lawsuit against ICBC to force payment of Part VII benefits.
The appeal dealt with (i) the required contents of a notice of rescission
under the Condominium Act, 1998 (SO 1998, c 19)(the «Condominium Act»), and (ii) whether the two -
year limitation period for a notice of rescission
under the Act is trumped by the more extended
limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act (RSO 1990, c L. 15)(the «RPLA»).
In Kaynes v. BP PLC, 1 the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the interaction between the three -
year limitation period for secondary market claims
under the Securities Act (the Act) and the court's discretion
under that regime to treat multiple misrepresentations as a single misrepresentation.
In general, all franchise related civil claims, whether statutory or common law, are subject to a general two -
year limitation period in Ontario to commence a legal action
under Ontario's Limitations Act, 2002.
In general, all franchise - related civil claims, whether statutory or common law, are subject to a general two -
year limitation period in Ontario to commence a legal action
under Ontario's Limitations Act, 2002.
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.
It has always been settled law that the applicable
limitation period to restitutionary claims is six
years under s 5 of the 1980 Act, though the courts are fairly diffident about saying so.
However, Mr Justice Coulson's decision to exercise his discretion
under s 33 of the
Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and to disapply the relevant three - year limitation period, so that the claimant, Mrs A, was entitled to pursue her claim for damages, represents a welcome sign that the courts are prepared to fashion the law in a manner conducive to achievin
Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) and to disapply the relevant three -
year limitation period, so that the claimant, Mrs A, was entitled to pursue her claim for damages, represents a welcome sign that the courts are prepared to fashion the law in a manner conducive to achievin
limitation period, so that the claimant, Mrs A, was entitled to pursue her claim for damages, represents a welcome sign that the courts are prepared to fashion the law in a manner conducive to achieving justice.
That case canvassed, summarized and clarified the law regarding when the «appropriate means» analysis
under s. 5 (1)(a)(iv) of the
Limitation Act, 2002, can be applied to delay the start of the running of the basic two - year limitati
Limitation Act, 2002, can be applied to delay the start of the running of the basic two -
year limitationlimitation period.
The plaintiff framed his action
under the Occupiers» Liability Act and, therefore, the one
year limitation period set out in the RTA does not apply.
In the meantime, two further secondary market liability cases had come before the Court of Appeal on appeal: Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2012 ONSC 3637), in which Justice Strathy reluctantly declined to certify a class action because it was time - barred by the three -
year limitation period; and Silver v. IMAX (2012 ONSC 4881), in which Justice van Rensburg granted an order issuing retroactive leave
under s. 138.8 of the OSA to allow the claim to proceed.
After the expiry of the two -
year limitation period, the appellants moved
under r. 21 for an order dismissing the action on the ground that Local 773 was not a suable entity.
Depending on the sanctions set out in the abstract for the violation
under investigation, the
limitation period relating to criminal prosecution ranges from two to 15
years.
We require covered entities to retain any documentation required
under this rule for at least six
years (the statute of
limitations period for the civil penalties) from the date of the creation of the documentation, or the date when the document was last in effect, which ever is later.
Stubbings argued that her action was one for personal injuries within LA 1980, s 11 for which the primary
limitation period was three
years, and further, that
under s 11 this three -
year limitation period did not start to run until her «date of knowledge» which was less than three
years before she issued proceedings.
A claim for damages for personal injuries caused by a sexual assault falls within the
Limitation Act 1980, s 11 and so has a limitation period of three years from the date when the claimant first considered the injury sufficiently serious to justify proceedings — and the judge may extend that period, under s 33, if it is equitable
Limitation Act 1980, s 11 and so has a
limitation period of three years from the date when the claimant first considered the injury sufficiently serious to justify proceedings — and the judge may extend that period, under s 33, if it is equitable
limitation period of three
years from the date when the claimant first considered the injury sufficiently serious to justify proceedings — and the judge may extend that
period,
under s 33, if it is equitable to do so.