<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Limitation Periods &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/limitation-periods/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2025 02:45:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Section 18 of the Limitations Act &#8211; Resetting the Ultimate Limitation Period for Contribution Claims</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/section-18-of-the-limitations-act-resetting-the-ultimate-limitation-period-for-contribution-claims/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=section-18-of-the-limitations-act-resetting-the-ultimate-limitation-period-for-contribution-claims</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/section-18-of-the-limitations-act-resetting-the-ultimate-limitation-period-for-contribution-claims/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7305</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jordan Petruska In Lower Williams Properties Ltd. v. Santaguida, 2025 ONSC 1132, the third party brought a Rule 21 motion in multiple related actions on the grounds that the third party action was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period. Background The actions all arose from a 2019 fire that damaged multiple properties on [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/section-18-of-the-limitations-act-resetting-the-ultimate-limitation-period-for-contribution-claims/">Section 18 of the Limitations Act &#8211; Resetting the Ultimate Limitation Period for Contribution Claims</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/section-18-of-the-limitations-act-resetting-the-ultimate-limitation-period-for-contribution-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cautions of Amending a Pleading with Newly Pleaded Facts and Causes of Action</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/cautions-of-amending-a-pleading-with-newly-pleaded-facts-and-causes-of-action/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=cautions-of-amending-a-pleading-with-newly-pleaded-facts-and-causes-of-action</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/cautions-of-amending-a-pleading-with-newly-pleaded-facts-and-causes-of-action/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2023 10:54:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6791</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jordan Petruska In Monster Snacks Inc. v. David, 2023 ONSC 6223, the plaintiff brought a motion to continue the claim and to amend a fresh statement of claim to particularize new allegations against the defendant. The Court granted an order to continue the claim, but dismissed the plaintiff’s motion to amend a fresh statement [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/cautions-of-amending-a-pleading-with-newly-pleaded-facts-and-causes-of-action/">Cautions of Amending a Pleading with Newly Pleaded Facts and Causes of Action</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/cautions-of-amending-a-pleading-with-newly-pleaded-facts-and-causes-of-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Limitation Periods and Enforcing Orders of the Court</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-periods-and-enforcing-orders-of-the-court/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=limitation-periods-and-enforcing-orders-of-the-court</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-periods-and-enforcing-orders-of-the-court/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:16:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6766</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Emmanuel Couture-Tremblay The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Gregg v. Thurston, 2023 ONSC 5944, dealt with the applicability of a statutory limitation period to an order of the court. Overview In this case, Sandra Gregg and Lloyd Thurston entered into an agreement during their engagement to purchase a vacant [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-periods-and-enforcing-orders-of-the-court/">Limitation Periods and Enforcing Orders of the Court</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-periods-and-enforcing-orders-of-the-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Limitation Periods and a ‘Continuing Contravention’</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-periods-and-a-continuing-contravention/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=limitation-periods-and-a-continuing-contravention</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-periods-and-a-continuing-contravention/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 21:24:25 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6751</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By: Antoinette Monardo The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently released its decision in Tyszko v. St. Catharines (City), 2023 ONSC 2892. This decision addresses the 2-year and 15-year ultimate limitation periods, and clarifies what constitutes a continuing contravention/continuing cause of action. Context In 2002, the City of St. Catherines (the City) installed storm sewers [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-periods-and-a-continuing-contravention/">Limitation Periods and a ‘Continuing Contravention’</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-periods-and-a-continuing-contravention/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Time is of the Essence: Missed Limitation Period = Missed Opportunity</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/time-is-of-the-essence-missed-limitation-period-missed-opportunity/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=time-is-of-the-essence-missed-limitation-period-missed-opportunity</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/time-is-of-the-essence-missed-limitation-period-missed-opportunity/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2023 21:56:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6561</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Annie Levanaj In Filippova v. Cross, et al., 2023 ONSC 3777, the plaintiff, a nursing student, filed a lawsuit against her college, a long-term care home she received training from, and its employees after being removed from the nursing program in November 2020. The plaintiff commenced her original action against those defendants on September [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/time-is-of-the-essence-missed-limitation-period-missed-opportunity/">Time is of the Essence: Missed Limitation Period = Missed Opportunity</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/time-is-of-the-essence-missed-limitation-period-missed-opportunity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Suspension of Limitation Periods Applies Only When a Cause of Action Exists</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-suspension-of-limitation-periods-applies-only-when-a-cause-of-action-exists/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-suspension-of-limitation-periods-applies-only-when-a-cause-of-action-exists</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-suspension-of-limitation-periods-applies-only-when-a-cause-of-action-exists/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2023 18:16:06 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6460</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Erin Crochetière The Court of Appeal in Wong v. Lui, 2023 ONCA 272, considered the applicability of the 15 year ultimate limitation period to claims advanced by a plaintiff who was a minor, but did not yet have a cause of action, during the running of the 15 year limitation period. In this case, [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-suspension-of-limitation-periods-applies-only-when-a-cause-of-action-exists/">The Suspension of Limitation Periods Applies Only When a Cause of Action Exists</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-suspension-of-limitation-periods-applies-only-when-a-cause-of-action-exists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Summary Judgment Motion Brought Too Late, with Too Little Evidence</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-motion-brought-too-late-with-too-little-evidence/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=summary-judgment-motion-brought-too-late-with-too-little-evidence</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-motion-brought-too-late-with-too-little-evidence/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2022 23:05:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5984</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jennifer Singh In our March 31, 2022 blog post[1], we discussed the decision in Atsaidis v. Sanford, 2022 ONSC 1690, wherein a consent adjournment of trial to permit the defendants to bring a summary judgment motion on a limitation period issue was denied by Justice D.A. Wilson. Justice Wilson scheduled the motion for two [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-motion-brought-too-late-with-too-little-evidence/">Summary Judgment Motion Brought Too Late, with Too Little Evidence</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/summary-judgment-motion-brought-too-late-with-too-little-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-61/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-61</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-61/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2021 16:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5426</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Michael Kryworuk discussed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Gordon Dunk Farms Limited v HFH Inc, 2021 ONCA 681, dealing with discoverability and the commencement of a limitation period. History of the Litigation This appeal arises from an action commenced by the appellant, Gordon Dunk Farms, against the respondents, who were [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-61/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-61/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clarity at Last – Extension of Limitations Periods at the LAT</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/clarity-at-last-extension-of-limitations-periods-at-the-lat/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=clarity-at-last-extension-of-limitations-periods-at-the-lat</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/clarity-at-last-extension-of-limitations-periods-at-the-lat/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Accident Benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5299</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Alon Barda There has been much confusion regarding the applicability of s.7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act[1] (the “LAT Act”) in recent years. This was finally put to rest with the recent Divisional Court decision of Fratarcangeli v. North Blenheim Mutual Insurance Company[2]wherein it was held that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT”) [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/clarity-at-last-extension-of-limitations-periods-at-the-lat/">Clarity at Last – Extension of Limitations Periods at the LAT</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/clarity-at-last-extension-of-limitations-periods-at-the-lat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Limitation Period and Discoverability in Unidentified Motorist Claims</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-period-and-discoverability-in-unidentified-motorist-claims/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=limitation-period-and-discoverability-in-unidentified-motorist-claims</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-period-and-discoverability-in-unidentified-motorist-claims/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2021 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limitation Periods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Automobile Claims]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5296</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Alon Barda and Natalia Sheikh The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Rooplal v. Foder, 2021 ONCA 357 addresses the time period that applies in unidentified motorist claims pursuant to s. 265 of the Insurance Act[1] and Uninsured Automobile Coverage, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 676 (“Regulation 676”). Facts The plaintiff was injured while riding a [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-period-and-discoverability-in-unidentified-motorist-claims/">Limitation Period and Discoverability in Unidentified Motorist Claims</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/limitation-period-and-discoverability-in-unidentified-motorist-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
