Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

  • Our Team

    Our Team

    • Lawyers & Clerks
    • Leadership Team
    • Board of Directors
    • Human Resources
    • Marketing & Business Development
    • Paraprofessional Services
  • Our Services

    Our Services

    • Service Areas
      • Aboriginal and Indigenous Law
      • Administrative Law
      • Agribusiness
      • Banking and Financial Services
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Business Disputes
      • Business Immigration
      • Class Actions
      • Construction Law
      • Corporate and Business
      • Corporate Finance and Securities
      • Corporate Governance and Compliance
      • Cross-Border Law
      • Education Law
      • ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance)
      • Estates and Trusts
      • Environmental Law
      • Foreign Direct Investment
      • Franchise Law
      • Health Law
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property
      • Labour and Employment
      • Litigation
      • Maritime Law
      • Media & Entertainment
      • Municipal Law
      • P3 and Infrastructure
      • Pensions and Benefits
      • Privacy, Data Protection and Cyber Security
      • Public Law
      • Real Estate
      • Regulation of Professions
      • SISIP LTD Allowances Class Action
      • Tax
      • Technology
      • View All
    • Industries
      • Cannabis
      • Construction & Property Development
      • Emerging & High Growth Companies
      • Energy & Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Institutions
      • Insurance
      • Manufacturing, Processing & Sales
      • Mining
      • Ocean Economy
      • Private Clients
      • Technology
      • View All
    • More Services
      • MC Advisory
      • MC Legal Lab
  • Our Insights
  • Our Firm

    Our Firm

    • Our Values
    • Our History
    • Our Representative Work
    • Our Global Reach
    • Our News
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
    • Pro Bono Program
  • Our Careers

    Our Careers

    • Lawyer Opportunities
    • Business Professional Opportunities
    • Paralegal & Legal Assistant Opportunities
    • Summer Student & Articling Opportunities
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Stay Updated
  • Contact Us
  • LexMundi World Ready
  • Privacy Policy
  • http://linkedin.com
  • http://facebook.com
  • http://twitter.com
  • 1.866.439.6246
Home > Our Insights > NS Proposes New Limitation of Actions Act: The 3 Top Benefits & The 10 Key Changes
Publication

NS Proposes New Limitation of Actions Act: The 3 Top Benefits & The 10 Key Changes

Published:

November 3, 2014

Author(s):

Share

Print

Note: On November 20, 2014 the NS Government passed the final form of Bill 64, Limitations of Actions Act into law. The final form of the Act differs from the first proposed version. Read about it in McInnes Cooper’s: Final Form of New NS Limitation of Actions Act – “Sudden Death” Limitation is Out for Personal Injury Claims.

On October 29, 2014, the NS Government introduced Bill 64. When passed into law, Bill 64 will replace the current NS Limitation of Actions Act – the legislation that determines the limitation period (time limit) in which a lawsuit must be started in relation to an NS claim – and significantly change the landscape for NS litigants.

Bill 64 is in 2nd reading only, but given its impact on litigants, it’s one to keep a close eye on. Here are the top 3 benefits of Bill 64 – and the 10 key changes it will make to the time limits to start a lawsuit in NS.

IMPACT

Bill 64 will take effect on a date the Government will set later, although it will likely allow a period of time so people can plan for the transition. When it does take effect, it will have an impact on existing claims and deliver some benefits to all litigants, particularly to those in the kinds of businesses frequently involved in litigation.

Existing Claims. The limitation period for claims based on acts or omissions that occurred before Bill 64 takes effect will be the earlier of:

  • two years after the date Bill 64 takes effect, or
  • the date on which the old limitation period would have otherwise expired.

Bill 64 doesn’t apply to claims made by parties within an ongoing legal proceeding as long as the claim is sufficiently related to it. Those with – or facing – an existing or potential claim should keep an eye on whether and how the proposed changes will affect those existing claims. People should promptly review the effect of the proposed changes on any existing or potential claims and take appropriate action.

Top 3 Benefits. If passed into law, Bill 64 also has the potential to deliver some benefits to litigants. Here are the top three:

  1. Simplicity. Consolidation of varying limitation periods based on the type of claim into a single, standard limitation period for most claims will make it simpler for everyone to figure out whether the time limit to start a lawsuit has expired – and to save the money and time associated with arguing about it.
  2. Certainty. Reduction of the time people have to start most kinds of lawsuits means the time in which businesses have potential liabilities hanging around is also shorter. And the addition of an ultimate limitation period and elimination of the power to extend a missed limitation period means that when it’s over, it’s over.  Bill 64 also clarifies some of the language in the current Limitation of Actions Act and expressly deals with some matters the current Act does not. These changes mean legal – and business – certainty for everyone.
  3. Consistency. Bill 64 will make the NS Limitation of Actions Act much more consistent with similar laws elsewhere in Canada. For example, similar changes to NB’s limitations legislation took full effect in May 2012. Read McInnes Cooper’s: NB’s New Limitation Periods Effective May 1, 2012 here. This should make it easier – and thus cheaper – for businesses that operate in multiple provinces to monitor and administer legal claims.

10 KEY CHANGES

Here are the 10 key changes Bill 64 will make:

  1. Consolidated Limitation Period. Under the current Act, there are many different time limits depending on the kind of lawsuit involved. For example, a lawsuit based on assault or defamation must be started within one year, one based on negligence or breach of contract must be started within six years and one based on a personal injury caused by a car accident must be started within three years. This could confuse people who want to start a legal action – especially those without legal training or experience. There will be a few exceptions, but Bill 64 will consolidate the limitation period and create a single, standard limitation period for almost all lawsuits – no matter what kind it is – simplifying the determination of the applicable limitation period.
  2. Shortened General Limitation Period. Under the current Act, the time to start a lawsuit for many common claims is three to six years from the date it’s discovered. With a few exceptions, Bill 64 sets the limitation period to start almost all types of claims at two years from the “date of discovery”. This reduces the time for many kinds of claims. The only limitation period Bill 64 will increase is for claims grounded in “assault, menace, battery, wounding, imprisonment or slander”, which is currently only one year.
  3. New Ultimate Limitation Period. Under the current Act, the time limit to start a lawsuit runs from the date a claim is discovered – but there is no “ultimate” end to it. This is to allow lawsuits for claims that typically take a long time to be discovered, like those caused by medical procedures – but effectively means a lawsuit could surface at any time after the act or omission that caused it. Again with a few exceptions, Bill 64 will bar a claim after 15 years from the day of the act or omission that caused it – regardless of when it’s discovered. The ultimate limitation period doesn’t run for any time during which the defendant wilfully conceals that a loss or injury occurred, that the defendant caused that loss or injury, or misleads the claimant as to whether the injury is sufficient to warrant starting a proceeding.
  4. “Sudden Death” Limitation. Under the current Act, a claimant who misses the applicable limitation period can apply to a judge to extend it for up to four additional years, and judges have the authority to do so. Bill 64 will eliminate this opportunity and authority to extend the limitation period – so when the limitation period is over, it’s really over.
  5. New Definition of “Discoverability”. The current Act does not define when a claim is “discovered”; the definition has been developed in court decisions. Bill 64 will add a definition to the Act expressly describing when a claim is “discovered”, enumerating four prerequisites.
  6. Elimination of Some Time Limits. Under the current Act, the only type of claim without any limitation period is for breach of fiduciary duty. Bill 64 will eliminate the limitation period for claims based on sexual assault, domestic violence and assaults involving dependents (including people who are financially, emotionally or physically dependent on others, or are in intimate relationships) – and eliminates the ongoing issue of determining when these kinds of claims were “discovered”. All other types of claims, including for breach of fiduciary duty, will have a time limit.
  7. Proving Limitation Period for Continuous & Serial Acts. Bill 64 expressly provides that with a continuing act or omission, the limitation period begins on the day on which the act or omission stops, and the claimant must prove she started the claim within the limitation period. With a series of acts or omissions, the limitation period begins on the day of the last act or omission and the defendant must prove the claimant did not start the claim within the limitation period.
  8. Claims for Contribution and Indemnity from Third Parties. The current Act also does not expressly deal with the limitation period for claims for contribution and indemnity. Bill 64 expressly deals with them. The two year general limitation period will apply if a defendant wants to claim for contribution or indemnity against a third party, and starts running on the day the plaintiff served the claim on the defendant. If a defendant has settled a claim, the limitation period for that defendant to seek contribution or indemnity from a third party is the settlement date. However, the effect that settlement after a claim is filed has on the limitation period to seek contribution or indemnity against a third party isn’t clear.
  9. Acknowledgement Resets Limitation Period. The current Act provides that when a party acknowledges liability of certain kinds of debt claims, the limitation period is reset to start on the date of that acknowledgement – but the wording is difficult to understand. Bill 64 does not change the resetting of the limitation period, but does clarify both the types of claims to which it applies and the requirements of the acknowledgement: it only applies to claims on debt and related personal property security (including payment of a liquidated sum, recovery of personal property, and enforcement or relief from a charge on personal property) and the acknowledgment must be made before the limitation period would have otherwise expired, in writing, and signed by the defendant (or his agent). Partial payment of a debt will also reset the limitation period; Bill 64 does not change this but does simplify the wording.
  10. Applicable Limitations Law. The current Act does not expressly deal with the limitations law that applies when there is a loss in one province but a lawsuit is started in another. Bill 64 codifies the existing legal principle that limitations periods are determined based on where the loss occurred – not where the lawsuit is started. For example, if a person is injured in a car accident in NS but started a lawsuit based on it in Ontario, the NS Limitations of Actions Act applies.

EXCEPTIONS

Bill 64 does have some exceptions; the main ones are:

Minors and Incapacity. Under the current Act, there are no time limits for any claims involving children (people under 19) and the limitation periods only start to run when a claimant reaches 19; similarly, they donot run while a claimant is incapable of bringing a claim due to incapacity. Bill 64 does not change these, but simplifies the language. However, under the current Act, the limitation period in these circumstances is five years; Bill 64 will reduce this to the general two year limitation period.

Government Claims. The two year general limitation period does not apply to certain claims by the Province, although it does apply to all claims against the Province.

Other Laws. Limitation periods contained in other laws (such as the NS Insurance Act) will prevail over the new Limitation of Actions Act. So, for example, the three-year limitation period for claims against an insurer for indemnification of an insured for loss, damage, or injury to a third party arising from a motor vehicle accident will remain intact.

Land. Bill 64 will not apply in respect of claims involving interests in land. The Bill amends the current Limitations of Actions Act to the “Limitations of Actions in Respect of Real Property Act” and repeals all sections not dealing with land. Therefore, the current 20-year limitation period respecting land or rent also remains intact.


Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our McInnes Cooper Insurance Defence Team or Litigation Team to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.


McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice.  You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2014.  All rights reserved.  McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it.  You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.

Share

Print
View Related Content

Related Lawyers

Related Services

  • Litigation

Related Industries

  • Insurance

Related Publications

View All Publications
  • Hacked Companies Can’t Be Tagged With “Intrusion Upon Seclusion”

    Jan 26, 2023

    In November 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively decided an organization whose information systems are breached by a malicious third…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Raising Coverage Concerns: 3 Risk Mitigation Practices

    Dec 13, 2022

    The insurer’s duty to defend a claim made against its insured is inextricably tied to coverage: there can be no duty to defend without a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Court Says B.C. Receiver Can Litigate Despite Arbitration Clause

    Nov 21, 2022

    On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the interaction of arbitration and bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, deciding a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Delay in Administrative Proceedings: 4 Key Take-Aways for Decision-Makers

    Jul 18, 2022

    The Supreme Court of Canada’s “Jordan” framework, introducing strict timelines for determining unreasonable delay in the context of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • NL Court Confirms Role of Jurisdiction in Injury Damages Calculation

    Apr 18, 2022

    On March 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (General Division) decided that in a personal injury case, quantification of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Advance Costs: Indigenous Perspective Pivotal in “Pressing Needs” Analysis

    Mar 31, 2022

    On March 18, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that an Indigenous government can still satisfy the impecuniosity requirement for an…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Fatal Accident Claims: An Atlantic Canada Update

    Mar 29, 2022

    The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent consideration of estoppel and waiver in the context of a fatal injury case in Trial Lawyers Association…

    Read More
    Publication
  • P.E.I. Non-Disclosure Agreements Act: 3 Key Facts for Employers

    Feb 8, 2022

    This publication has been updated as at December 15, 2022. On May 17, 2022, the P.E.I. Non-disclosure Agreements Act took effect,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Appeal Court Confirms Key Role of Courts & Injunctions to Resolve Disputes

    Feb 3, 2022

    On January 26, 2022, the British Columbia Court of Appeal extended an injunction preventing protesters from interfering with a logging…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 6 (Liability) Reasons to Mitigate Your Privacy & Data Breach Risks

    Dec 16, 2021

    We updated this publication on December 21, 2022. The name of the game is to have a plan to mitigate the risk that a data breach will happen…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Court Puts Brakes on Estoppel Claim: 3 Insurer Take-Aways

    Nov 23, 2021

    On November 19, 2021, in Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, the Supreme…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Canada: “Carry On” With Care

    Nov 12, 2021

    On November 4, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law regarding when a judgment debtor “carries on business” for the purpose of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Slippery Snowbanks & Municipal Liability: When is a Policy Not a Policy?

    Oct 29, 2021

    On October 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law concerning the circumstances in which government organizations - including…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Aviva Insurance v. PK Construction: Words Come First When Interpreting Insurance Policy

    Sep 23, 2021

    On September 9, 2021, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its decision in Aviva Insurance v. PK Construction Ltd. Dealing with Nova…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Limitation Clock: Supreme Court of Canada Refines Discoverability Rule

    Aug 3, 2021

    On July 29, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada refined the test for determining when a plaintiff has discovered a claim for the purpose of a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 3 Tips to Exercise Contractual Discretion in Good Faith

    Mar 1, 2021

    The Supreme Court of Canada continues to develop and clarify the organizing principle of good faith performance in contract law. In its 2014…

    Read More
    Publication
  • C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger: 3 Tips to Honestly Exercise Contract Rights

    Jan 18, 2021

    The Supreme Court of Canada, in the 2014 case of Bhasin v. Hrynew, recognized a general organizing principle of good faith performance in…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller: One-Sided Standard Form Clauses May Be Unenforceable

    Jul 6, 2020

    On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, a much-awaited decision regarding the enforceability of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Predicting the Claims Landscape Post COVID-19

    Jun 11, 2020

    New types of claims will emerge while insurers may see an evolution or even decrease in the traditional types. Here are the types of claims and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Callidus Capital Corp: Policing CCAA Proceedings

    May 11, 2020

    The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a much-awaited decision regarding the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The CCAA is…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Coping with COVID-19: Assessing Travel Insurance Claims

    Apr 17, 2020

    The global and domestic spread of COVID-19 has forced Canadians to reassess their upcoming travel plans – and insurers to assess their travel…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Coping with COVID-19: 3 Legal Remedies for Contractual Liability Risks

    Mar 10, 2020

    The global COVID-19 (a.k.a. Coronavirus or SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has implications for many commercial relationships, its evolving nature and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Bailey v. Temple: NL Appeal Court Cautions You Don’t Get More Release Than You Bargained For

    Feb 14, 2020

    NOTE: On July 23, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal’s decision respecting the law,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Compton v. Toyota: N.L. Appeal Court Eliminates the Expert Fact Witness

    Jan 14, 2020

    On December 23, 2019, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal effectively eliminated the category of “knowledgeable fact witness” in…

    Read More
    Publication
  • N.S. Appeal Court Confirms Future Wage Loss Calculated on Gross Basis in MacDonald v. MacVicar

    Nov 22, 2019

    On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of Nova Scotia’s Insurance Act, in the context of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • New Brunswick’s Enhanced Money Judgment Enforcement Regime

    Nov 18, 2019

    Effective December 1, 2019, the New Brunswick government will finally finalize the reform of N.B.’s money judgment enforcement regime with the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • N.S. Appeal Court Confirms Future CPP Disability Benefits Are Deductible from Future Income Loss Awards in MVA Claims

    Jan 21, 2019

    On January 18, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rendered its unanimous (5-0) decision in Holland v. Sparks, overturning a motion decision…

    Read More
    Publication
  • It’s Not Fake News: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Media Doesn’t Get Special Protection from Production Orders in R. v. Vice Media Canada Inc.

    Dec 4, 2018

    On November 30, 2018, a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada decided the media doesn’t get any special protection from the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • N.S. Court Decides Future Wage Loss Calculated on Gross – Not Net – Basis in MacDonald v. MacVicar

    Oct 25, 2018

    NOTE: On November 20, 2019, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision and confirmed pursuant to section 113BA(1) of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • N.S. Court of Appeal Offers 5 Key Insights into the new N.S. Limitations Act’s Saving Provision

    Oct 12, 2018

    On October 11, 2018, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its first decision considering the saving provision in Section 12 of Nova…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Jurisdiction Over Internet Defamation: Same Law, Different Facts in Haaretz v. Goldhar

    Jun 11, 2018

    On June 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the test for jurisdiction over an allegedly defamatory Internet article – the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Extended Earning-Replacement Benefits are Deductible from N.S. Section B Weekly Income Replacement Benefits

    May 11, 2018

    On May 8, 2018, for the first time, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has ruled on the deductibility of Workers’ Compensation Board Extended…

    Read More
    Publication
  • A Lid on Medical Pot: No health Plan Coverage or Workers Compensation Benefits

    Apr 26, 2018

    The N.S. Court of Appeal has reached two decisions ending one employee’s quest for coverage of the costs of his medical marijuana – at least…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Don’t Bother Asking: Supreme Court of Canada Raises the Bar for Mandatory Injunctions in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)

    Feb 15, 2018

    Mandatory interlocutory injunctions - court orders, made in the context of a lawsuit, that a party take positive action as opposed to refrain…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Medical Cannabis Health Benefits Coverage Strategy: Key Considerations

    Jan 25, 2018

    Insurers have generally been leery of coverage for medical cannabis in both the health benefit claims and in cost of care claims in the personal…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Legal Reality: Canadian Appeal Court decides “Virtual Presence” is enough for production order for user information against non-Canadian company in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Brecknell

    Jan 12, 2018

    Whether a provincial court will grant police a “production order” under the Criminal Code of Canada requiring a non-Canadian company to…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Watching Your Claims Go Up In Smoke? Five Key Medical Cannabis Cost of Care Considerations

    Jul 10, 2017

    The legal landscape of cannabis (a.k.a. marihuana, weed, pot …) is changing, both reflecting - and contributing to - more relaxed attitudes…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Go Global @ Home: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Global Order to Remove Internet Content in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc.

    Jun 28, 2017

    On June 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed a Canadian court can issue an interlocutory injunction (an order requiring an entity or…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Like it or Not: Supreme Court of Canada decides class action against Facebook can go ahead in B.C. – despite its terms of use in Douez v. Facebook, Inc.

    Jun 23, 2017

    On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that in a contest between the choice of forum clause in Facebook’s online terms of use…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Puts Insurers on Notice in Saadati v. Moorhead: Proof of a Recognized Psychiatric Injury is Not a Precondition to Recovery

    Jun 5, 2017

    On June 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that where a plaintiff advances a claim for negligently caused psychological or psychiatric…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Are Future CPP Disability Benefits Deductible? N.S. Court of Appeal Says Yes in Motor Vehicle Accident Claims in Tibbetts v. Murphy

    May 3, 2017

    On May 2, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal decided another case involving the deductibility of CPP disability benefits – but this time, in the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Daniel Watt and Sara Mahaney in Gard Update: Legal privilege in the corporate context in Canada

    Apr 6, 2017

    Adding a third jurisdiction to Gard Update’s comparison between privilege in the corporate context under U.S. and English law, McInnes Cooper…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Dust Off Your Limitation Defence: Court of Appeal Doesn’t Apply Extended Limitation Period in Yarmouth (District) v Nickerson

    Mar 15, 2017

    On March 9, 2017, the N.S. Court of Appeal stopped building inspection claims in their tracks when it decided that a defence based section…

    Read More
    Publication
  • It’s Settled: SCC says Future CPP Disability Benefits Are Not Deductible Under SEF 44 Endorsement in Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co.

    Jan 30, 2017

    On January 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. that future CPP disability…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Says Privilege Wins Again – Twice in Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada & Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary

    Nov 28, 2016

    On November 25, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided privilege wins again - twice. In two separate decisions - Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Gives a Lesson in Insurance Contract Interpretation in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co.

    Sep 19, 2016

    On September 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided certain damage to a building under construction was covered under the relevant…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Limitation Periods: Avoiding Hitting the Reset Button in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings

    Aug 17, 2016

    The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently affirmed the test for confirming a cause of action and thus resetting a limitation period…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Sticks With Presumptive Jurisdiction Tests for Forum Non-Conveniens in Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP

    Jul 19, 2016

    On July 15, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada, in a long-awaited decision, resisted the invitation to re-write the traditional rules for the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Municipal Liability for ByLaw Enforcement: A Bylaw’s Not a Bylaw in Vlanich v. Typhair

    Jul 5, 2016

    The Ontario Court of Appeal has re-ignited the discussion about when a municipality will be held liable for its shoddy bylaw enforcement…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Weigh Now or Weight Later: New Cargo Container Verified Gross Mass (VGM) Rules Effective July 1, 2016

    Jun 20, 2016

    As of July 1, 2016, packed cargo containers to which the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Chapter VI, Regulation…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Realtor Risk Management: 10 Practical Tips to Help Realtors Manage Litigation Risk

    Jun 20, 2016

    Real estate vendors and purchasers have high expectations of their realtors – and they don’t often hesitate to pursue legal action against…

    Read More
    Publication
  • From Watershed Decision to Watershed Law: Government Proposes Physician-Assisted Dying Law in Bill C-14 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)

    Apr 15, 2016

    On April 14, 2016, Canada’s federal Justice Minister proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Doe 464533 v. D.: Business Implications of the Civil Privacy Claim for “Public Disclosure of Private Facts”

    Jan 27, 2016

    On January 21, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dramatically expanded the scope of legal privacy protection – and the liability…

    Read More
    Publication
  • A Glimpse Into The Future of Privacy Law: Medical Marijuana Privacy Breach Class Action Lawsuit Can Go Ahead in John Doe and Suzie Jones v. Her Majesty the Queen

    Jul 29, 2015

    On July 27, 2015, the Federal Court of Canada decided a lawsuit by medical marijuana program participants against the Federal Government…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Bad Faith & Production of an Insurer’s Business Information: 4 Key Implications of the NB Court of Appeal’s Decision in Wade v. Wawanesa Ins. Co.

    Jul 21, 2015

    On July 16, 2015, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal ordered an insurer to produce a significant amount of its financial and business information…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Nova Scotia Goes Its Own Way: Future CPP Disability Benefits Deductible Under SEF 44 in Portage Le Prairie Mutual Insurance Company v. Sabean and Hallett

    Jun 8, 2015

    On June 4, 2015, the NS Court of Appeal decided the value of future CPP disability benefits is deductible under the SEF 44 family protection…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Final Form of New NS Limitation of Actions Act: “Sudden Death” Limitation is Out for Personal Injury Claims

    Feb 18, 2015

    The new NS Limitations of Actions Act – the legislation that determines the limitation period (time limit) in which a lawsuit must be started…

    Read More
    Publication
  • No More Criminalization of Physician-Assisted Dying: The Ripple Effects of A Watershed Decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)

    Feb 9, 2015

    NOTE: On April 14, 2016, the federal government proposed legislation setting out the conditions that a person wishing to undergo…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Thou Shalt Not Lie: SCC Recognizes New Duty of Honesty in Contract Law in Bhasin v. Hrynew

    Nov 14, 2014

    On November 13, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) effected a significant development in Canadian contract law by recognizing the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Changes to NB Rules of Court Effective October 1, 2014 Benefit Successful Party

    Sep 9, 2014

    Effective October 1, 2014, the New Brunswick Rules of Court will change – some Rules for the first time since they came into effect in 1982.…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Court Orders Feds to Reconsider Canadian Forces Housing Compensation Policy in Brauer v. The Queen

    May 26, 2014

    On May 23, 2014 the Federal Court of Canada decided the Federal Treasury Board Secretariat’s interpretation of the policy for compensating…

    Read More
    Publication
  • What’s In The Pipe? Municipal Liability for Flood & Sewage Back-Up Claims

    May 2, 2014

    April showers bring … flood and sewage back-up claims. Flooding and sewage back-up can result in significant damage for municipal ratepayers,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • A Practical Analysis of “Material Fact”

    May 21, 2013

    In its April 2013 decision in Re Stan, the Alberta Securities Commission provides issuers with a practical approach to the assessment of both a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Students with Learning Disabilities Have a Right to Education Comparable to that of the General Student Population in Moore v. British Columbia (Education)

    Jan 8, 2013

    On November 19, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) unanimously ruled a B.C. public school system’s failure to provide adequate and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Contamination Claims: Long Tails or Just Dogs? Practical and Legal Issues of Litigation Contamination Slow-Leak Cases

    Mar 6, 2009

    “Contamination Claims: Long Tails or Just Dogs? Practical and Legal Issues of Litigating Contaminant Slow-Leak Cases”, Cdn Journal of…

    Read More
    Publication

Stay Updated

Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.

Connect With Us:
  • Follow us on Twitter @mcinnescooper
  • Like us on Facebook @mcinnescooperlaw
  • Join us on LinkedIn @mcinnes-cooper
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright © 2023 — McInnes Cooper
Lex Mundi Logo MC Advisory Logo