Law360 Canada ( May 13, 2026, 9:33 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Kelly from the dismissal of his motion for summary judgment. The motion sought to strike the petitioner Polowy’s claim for an accounting and equalization of family assets, including pensions, on the basis that the petition was filed outside the three‑year limitation period. Polowy responded by arguing that the limitation period was inoperative due to an agreement between the parties to proceed with a family property accounting and, alternatively, that Kelly was barred from relying on the limitation defence by promissory estoppel arising from ongoing settlement negotiations before and after the limitation period expired. The motion judge rejected the existence of any agreement capable of ousting the limitation period. However, he accepted the promissory estoppel argument, finding that the parties’ conduct during negotiations, including exchanges of disclosure, agreement on some asset values, pension division discussions, and continued negotiations without reference to limitations, reasonably led Polowy to believe the limitation period would not be relied upon. On that basis, he concluded Kelly was estopped from asserting the limitation defence and dismissed the summary judgment motion. Afterward, an associate judge completed a reference accounting, resulting in an equalization order. Polowy argued the appeal was therefore moot. Kelly contended the reference proceeded on the understanding it was subject to the outcome of the appeal. On appeal, the issues were whether the appeal was moot, whether the motion judge misapprehended the evidentiary record and credibility issues in determining there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, and whether he erred in law by misapplying the principles governing promissory estoppel on a summary judgment record....