Hi there,

Could someone please help me answer three questions based on the following case below;

"Joseph suffered an injury at Paramount's amusement park. His lawyer prepared a statement of claim, but his assistant did not file it before the limitation period expired. She believed that the relevant limitation period was six years. However, in Ontario theLimitations Act, 2002established a basic two-year limitation period and an ultimate limitation period of 15 years. (The basic limitation period runs from when the claim is discovered.) When the lawyer realized the error that had been made, he filed and served the statement of claim. The defendant applied for a ruling that the action was barred since the limitation period had expired. A judge of the Superior Court of Justice held that the action was barred by the two-year limitation period provided by the new Act. The judge also held, however, that he had discretion under the common law doctrine of special circumstances to extend the time to commence an action as long as there was no prejudice to the defendant that could not be compensated for with either costs or an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal briefly discussed the aim of the new Act ("to balance the right of claimants to sue with the right of defendants to have some certainty and finality in managing their affairs"). It also discussed some of the reforms introduced by the new Act, such as the doctrine of discoverability. With respect to the special circumstances doctrine, the Court held that the Ontario legislature did not intend that the courts would continue to have discretion to extend the limitation periods under the new Act, which was intended to be comprehensive."

For question 2, here is the other case being compared to the one above;

"EFG Co. was involved in a contract dispute with one of its suppliers, SUB Co. The dispute involved defective parts and the quantum in dispute was about $3.5Million. They had been in a commercial relationship for approximately five years. The parties were negotiating a potential settlement, but the negotiations languished over a 28-month period. Finally, EFG Co. was frustrated enough to file a statement of claim against SUB Co. But EFG's lawyer advised that they might be past a Statute of Limitations period to file a formal claim. She also explained that the judge might exercise discretion in the light of these circumstances."

1. Which legal topic or concept includes and discusses this case?
2. According to the results of this case, is the advice that EFG Co's lawyer provides correct? (Brief "yes", "no" or "maybe" or "it depends" answer with a short explanation.
3. Name two facts in the Fictitious Scenario that are irrelevant to your conclusion in question 2.