Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 JULY 2013

Limitation Period For Contractual Indemnity

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Contributor
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

With over 750 lawyers, intellectual property agents and other professionals, BLG services...

View firm profile
Explore more from Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Justice Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal has shed some light on the confusion created by section 18 of the Limitations Act 2002, in Canaccord Capital Corp v Roscoe, 2013 ONCA 378.

CanadaCorporate/Commercial Law

​Do judges get tired of having to figure out what Ontario's Limitations Act 2002 actually means? As well they might; the legislation seems to have created more confusion than it has cleared up. One such area of confusion has been section 18, which governs claims for contribution and indemnity brought by one wrongdoer against another. Justice Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal has shed some light on the provision in Canaccord Capital Corp v Roscoe, 2013 ONCA 378.

Roscoe was an investment adviser at Canaccord, and his contract of employment contained a provision under which he agreed to indemnify his employer for any claim against it that arose from Roscoe's acts or omissions. Two customers of the firm, Mr and Mrs Cavanagh, alleged that Roscoe and Canaccord had caused them losses for failing to assess their risk tolerance properly and for not being duly diligent in recommending investments. Canaccord funded the defence and did not claim against Roscoe under

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from