Introduction
You asked me to conduct an objective assessment of the merits of Lakeside Logs case, and to determine whether it is likely that the court will dismiss Lakeside Logs case because it may be bared under the Limitations Act (see Act).
Facts
On September 8, 2013, Alice Logo, the owner of Lakeside Logs, entered into contract with Historic Renovators for the purpose of renovating Lakeside Logs cabins. Historic Renovators completed work on November 20, 2013.
Upon the examination of cabins in Spring of 2014 and Summer of 2014, Ms. Logo found water near the windows of cabin 2 and 3. On August 30, 2014, Mr. Logo contacted Historic Renovations. The owner, Mr. Mae expedited Mr. Dudley Peters to inspect the cabins. In his report, Mr. Peters …show more content…
Logo first discovered the water stains on the floors in cabins 2 and 3, and springy floor boards in cabin 5 on August 30, 2014. He subsequently noted this on his calendar. If August 30, 2014 is adopted as a date of the discovery of the damage, then it would seem that the result would be that Ms. Logo’s claim exceeds the limitation period, however it cannot be certain unless we examine the rest of the subsections of section 5 of the Act (Act at …show more content…
Logo could attempt to dispute the discovery date by submitting that he did not know whether Historic Renovators was responsible for the damage until he received an expert report by Superior Cabin Restorers. However, as the case law points out, an expert report is not always required to commence the claim (Kowal v Shiyak, (2012), 512 ONCA, at para 18). Moreover, “…certainty of a defendant's responsibility for the act or omission that caused or contributed to the loss is not a requirement. It is enough to have prima facie grounds to infer that the acts or omissions were caused by the party or parties identified” (ibid at para 18). In addition, expert’s report states that it is possible that the decay started before 2013. Therefore, it is unlikely that Ms. Logo will be successful in this
You asked me to conduct an objective assessment of the merits of Lakeside Logs case, and to determine whether it is likely that the court will dismiss Lakeside Logs case because it may be bared under the Limitations Act (see Act).
Facts
On September 8, 2013, Alice Logo, the owner of Lakeside Logs, entered into contract with Historic Renovators for the purpose of renovating Lakeside Logs cabins. Historic Renovators completed work on November 20, 2013.
Upon the examination of cabins in Spring of 2014 and Summer of 2014, Ms. Logo found water near the windows of cabin 2 and 3. On August 30, 2014, Mr. Logo contacted Historic Renovations. The owner, Mr. Mae expedited Mr. Dudley Peters to inspect the cabins. In his report, Mr. Peters …show more content…
Logo first discovered the water stains on the floors in cabins 2 and 3, and springy floor boards in cabin 5 on August 30, 2014. He subsequently noted this on his calendar. If August 30, 2014 is adopted as a date of the discovery of the damage, then it would seem that the result would be that Ms. Logo’s claim exceeds the limitation period, however it cannot be certain unless we examine the rest of the subsections of section 5 of the Act (Act at …show more content…
Logo could attempt to dispute the discovery date by submitting that he did not know whether Historic Renovators was responsible for the damage until he received an expert report by Superior Cabin Restorers. However, as the case law points out, an expert report is not always required to commence the claim (Kowal v Shiyak, (2012), 512 ONCA, at para 18). Moreover, “…certainty of a defendant's responsibility for the act or omission that caused or contributed to the loss is not a requirement. It is enough to have prima facie grounds to infer that the acts or omissions were caused by the party or parties identified” (ibid at para 18). In addition, expert’s report states that it is possible that the decay started before 2013. Therefore, it is unlikely that Ms. Logo will be successful in this