The legal proceedings focused on two main Applications: the Plaintiff sought to strike the portion of the Defendants’ Statement of Defence, pursuant to Rule 3.68, which asserted that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 (the “Limitations Act”). The Defendants cross-applied for an order striking the Plaintiff's entire Statement of Claim on the basis that it was entirely out of time pursuant to the Limitations Act. The Court was tasked with determining whether the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim was filed in a timely manner, a decision that hinged on interpreting when the limitation period for a claim of negligent investigation actually begins.

The Court concluded that the issue of the limitation period was dependent on the specifics of the case and could not be resolved through mere procedural motions to strike pursuant to Rule 3.68. The Court emphasized that such matters require a thorough examination of the facts, and cited case law which states that for a limitation defence, Rule 7.3 is applicable, and not Rule 3.68.

In examining the Defendants’ Application to strike the Plaintiff’s entire Statement of Claim, the Court found that the arguments submitted by the Defendants had already been considered by the Court and rejected in a previous Decision. The Court determined their re-argument in the context of the present Application was unnecessary, and therefore, would not be considered.

As a result, both the Plaintiff's and Defendants' Applications were dismissed.