GRAHAM v GRAHAM

The Appellants appealed the decision of a Chambers Judge granting Summary Dismissal of the Action.

In reviewing the decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Chambers Judge had correctly identified the criteria for Summary Dismissal in Rule 7.3(1), namely that a claim may be summarily dismissed if it has no merit.

The Appellants argued the Chambers Judge erred in determining that the Action was barred by the limitation period. Applying the standard of review of palpable and overriding error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Chambers Judge's determination that the claim was out of time.

Next, the Appellants submitted that the relief sought in the Action was declaratory, not remedial, and therefore the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 did not apply. The relief sought was for a "Judgment and declaration" that the Appellants were the beneficial owners of certain lands. Surveying the applicable case law, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Chambers Judge that the remedy sought was coercive in nature, requiring a legal remedy. This ground of appeal was dismissed.

The Appellants also appealed the Chambers Judge's decision that their claims of proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment were without merit and founded on hearsay. The Chambers Judge had addressed each of these claims despite finding they were out of time. Reviewing the Chambers Judge's assessment, the Court of Appeal held that the Chambers Judge recognized, properly described, and analyzed the claims for proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment, and concluded, based upon the facts, that they were unsubstantiated. Additionally, the Court of Appeal upheld the Chambers Judge's finding that much of the Appellants' evidence was inadmissible hearsay. This ground of appeal was dismissed.

Having found no grounds to overturn the decision, the Appeal was dismissed and the Chambers Judge's costs award upheld.