CIVIL PROCEDURE - Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - To dismiss action

Law360 Canada ( January 31, 2025, 10:28 AM EST) -- Appeal by Appellant against a summary judgment order in favour of the Respondents. The Appellant built a luxury cottage in Northern Ontario for the respondents which was completed in 2011. Shortly after, the respondents reported leaks around the roof and chimney areas. The Appellant conducted repairs in 2013, but when the Respondents hired another contractor in 2015, extensive water damage was discovered which led to costly repairs. Consequently, the Respondents sued the Appellant in 2016 for breach of contract, seeking approximately $750,000 in damages. The Appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Respondents' claim was statute-barred, asserting that the Respondents knew or should have known about the breach in 2012. The Respondents contended that the limitation period started in 2015 when the new contractor uncovered the damage. The motion judge dismissed the Appellant's motion and issued a "boomerang" order, declaring the Respondents' action timely and not statute barred. On appeal, the Appellant argued that the motion judge erred in the discoverability analysis by not applying the correct standard and failing to recognize the nature of the dispute as a breach of contract claim. The Appellant also contended that the judge's causation analysis was flawed and that the Respondents could not reasonably rely on the Appellant's assurances about the chimney saddle's necessity. Further, the Appellant argued that the motion judge erred in granting the "boomerang" order without assessing further steps....
LexisNexis® Research Solutions

Related Sections