In Sidhu v. Jain, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the motion judge’s determination that the respondent’s claim for a monetary remedy to compensate her for a claimed one-third beneficial interest in Lot 16 was governed by the Real Property Limitations Act, not the Limitations Act, 2002. Even though a monetary remedy was sought rather than the land itself (which had already been sold), that did not take the claim out of the RPLA.
In G.G. v. Ontario, the Court granted intervener status to four organizations in a class action appeal that will be considering whether the Ragoonanan principle should continue to apply in Ontario class proceedings. That principle requires that there be a representative plaintiff (and not merely any member of the proposed class) with a cause of action against each defendant.
John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email