Law360 Canada ( March 26, 2026, 9:35 AM EDT) -- Appeal by RIP Defendants from the portion of a decision that struck their plea of equitable set‑off in the Dunn Action on the basis that it was barred by the Limitations Act. Cross‑appeal by Dunn from the judge’s obiter conclusion that equitable set‑off would have been available if not time‑barred. The RIP Action and Dunn Action arose from a breakdown in the parties’ liquor‑store development ventures. Between May 2018 and April 2019, the RIP Plaintiffs advanced approximately $3.5 million intended for three Enterprise stores, but undisputedly a significant portion was used by the Dunn Defendants to develop other stores. The RIP Plaintiffs alleged misappropriation and commenced the RIP Action. The Dunn Defendants asserted the claim was statute‑barred. Dunn separately commenced the Dunn Action, seeking payment under a 2020 Deferred Payout Agreement arising from the sale of interests in two stores. The RIP Defendants pleaded equitable set‑off, asserting the amount claimed by Dunn must be reduced by the misappropriated RIP funds shown in the spreadsheet. The judge granted summary judgment in both actions, finding the RIP Action statute‑barred and the equitable set‑off barred for the same reason. On appeal, the RIP Defendants argued that the Limitations Act did not apply to a defence of equitable set‑off, which was not a claim, and that the judge erred in striking the plea. They further submitted that other factual issues remained, precluding summary judgment. Dunn contended the equitable set‑off was a claim subject to limitation periods because it required establishing an antecedent cause of action, and maintained the judge was correct to strike it....