2012-12-17 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS and potential civil litigation, Laliberte vs McKercher and Laliberte vs Liberal Party
A. ACTION
Based on
- the view presented below that the limitation period ends in January 2014
- the expectation that the filing process will take 6 months, well into summer 2013,
decision taken, Dec 19, 2012: we need to start the process now, to file documents with the Court to start the legal action against both McKercher and the Liberal Party.
B. WHEN DOES THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGIN AND END FOR GEORGE LALIBERTE TO INITIATE CIVIL LITIGATION?
There is a synopsis of the Act on Sask Justice website.
Using only that, without reference to court cases that might have established further interpretations, and using lay person’s analysis, there is a strong case (below) to say
- the two-year limitation period commenced in January 2012 when George received the calls from the reporters about the $5000 award against him.
- it applies to possible civil litigation regarding BOTH McKercher AND the Liberal Party.
QUESTION NOT YET ANSWERED: Are there any other considerations that would affect the determination of when the Statute of Limitations commenced in relation to the Liberal Party? If not, as presented below, it seems relatively straight forward: for both McKercher and the Liberal Party, the Limitation period started ticking in January 2012.
George began his efforts seeking redress by February 2012, with a visit to the Court House to obtain information.
Any feedback on the following (first the synopsis and then the line of argument), will be sincerely appreciated. What is missing? It looks a little too simple!
SYNOPSIS OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FROM SASK JUSTICE WEBSITE:
http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/Limitations-Act
EXCERPT:
. . . Ideally a limitation statute should include as few limitation periods as possible. This contributes to clarity and predictability for the parties. Most of the limitation periods in other statutes were eliminated when The Limitations Act came into force. (INSERT: it came into force in 2005)
The new Act clarifies and rationalizes limitation periods for legal actions. It provides a standard two year limitation period for civil legal actions. The two year period for actions starts to run when the person bringing the action first knew, or ought to have known, that:
- the injury had occurred;
- was attributable to the defendant’s conduct; and
- warranted bringing a proceeding.
This is referred to as the discoverability principle.
The new legislation includes an ultimate limitation period that bars all actions after 15 years after the events that gave rise to the action. This prevents an action being postponed for an indeterminate time due to the discoverability principle.
The legislation includes provisions for special circumstances. It retains Saskatchewan=s current provision postponing the running of a limitation period for minors or mentally disabled persons who are not represented by a personal or property guardian. It provides that where a defendant fraudulently conceals the fact that injury occurred, the ultimate limitation period is suspended. In addition, it includes a provision that allows parties to contractually extend the limitation period.
– – – – – – – – – – –
AS APPLIED TO GEORGE’S CIRCUMSTANCES
- VIS-A-VIS MCKERCHER
The limitation period started to run in January 2012.
George first knew that injury occurred when reporters phoned him in January 2012 to inquire about the $5000 award to Vellacott against George.
There may be a question of whether the “legal action” has commenced with George’s submission to the Law Society (not the same as a submission to the Courts). But the answer will not matter as long as George files litigation papers with the Courts in advance of January 2014. At this point there is no danger from a limitation period.
2. VIS-A-VIS THE LIBERAL PARTY
If it should be determined that legal action against the Liberal Party is warranted, how would it fare under the Statute of Limitations?
when did George first know, or ought to have known, that:
- the injury had occurred;
- was attributable to the defendant’s conduct;
and - warranted bringing a proceeding. ?
Was it in 2006-07, or was it in 2012?
In 2006-07, George went to the candidate, Chris Axworthy (a longtime professor of law and also dean of two law schools), who told George that the Liberal Party would look after the problem and that George had done nothing wrong. George did not engage a lawyer.
George told the first lawyer sent to him by the Liberals (Darren Winegarden) that he felt he had been used by the Liberals and the conflict was of their making. Winegarden undertook to provide this feedback to the Liberals and was fired by them.
Later, Lawyer Joel Hesje contacted George and convinced him that he should go with Hesje to a meeting with Vellacott and Vellacott’s lawyer. George apologized to Vellacott, and told Vellacott that he did not have $250,000, or $100,00, or $50,000 or $5,000 to pay to Vellacott.
That concluded the communications of the Liberal Party and McKercher with George. Chris Axworthy had told George that the Liberal Party would look after the matter. This was in 2007.
So, when did George first know, or ought to have known, that:
- the injury had occurred;
- was attributable to the defendant’s conduct;
and - warranted bringing a proceeding. ?
It was not until January 2012, more than four years after the meeting with Vellcott, when reporters phoned George to obtain his reaction to the court award against him. Prior to the reporters’ calls in January 2012 George did not know that the Liberal Party had not closed the file, and that there was legal action against him.
Are there any other considerations that would affect the determination of when the Statute of Limitations commenced in relation to the Liberal Party? If not, then it seems relatively straight forward: for both McKercher and the Liberal Party, the Limitation period started ticking in January 2012.