Here is my reply to David L. Cook’s recent posting about the Statute of Limitation under the heading “Knob & Tube Wiring.”
Anyone can sue anybody in Ontario without merit. For less than $100 one can become a plaintiff asking for up to $10,000,00 in compensation without any proof of legitimacy at the time the claim is filed in Small Claims Court.
But under this type of court procedure a defendant is actually being forced to file a defence even if the claim is outright frivolous. If the person being sued is unable to stage his/her own defence - costly legal advice and/or services will become unavoidable. Failure to file a proper defence will automatically result in a judgment by default in favour of the even most conniving plaintiff.
Here is one example how the court system can be misused:
In April 2008 I was served unexpectedly with a “*Plaintiff’s Claim” *in the amount of $10,000.00 for alleged negligence during an inspection in **February of 2002. **The claimant never contacted me by phone or mail in **more than six years. **
I have tried to raise the *“Statute of Limitation” *issue twice without any success.
However - it seems that I was successful in convincing the shyster lawyer of the customer during the “Settlement Conference” that they had in my opinion no chance to collect one penny ever - because I claimed to have no insurance for frivolous claims. They never asked for a trial date - and recently I received an **“Order Dismissing the Claim as Abandoned.” **
The ordeal cost me $25.00 for filing my defence - and $12.00 for parking while attending the Settlement Conference.
RUDOLF REUSSE - Home Inspector since 1976 - **TORONTO
**
Just got over a similar experience. Mine included numerous trips to court while the plaintiff moved from one lawyer to another ( apparently each lawyer told them that they didn’t have a case so they just kept looking). Eventually we got to the pretrial hearing and I produced my digital photos showing that there was no problem when I was there ( we are talking about a frost heaved garage floor that the plaintiffs replaced before any of the defendants - there were seven of us - could have our experts examine it)
The judge told the plaintiff that they had a “very, very, very, very, very, long uphill battle” ( the judge could not throw it out at that stage) and they then abandoned the whole thing.
The other defendants were out a considerable amount of money as they were the primary targets ( long story) and the selling agent was out of pocket $3000. Fortunately my costs were in the $25. range.
So where is the justice? The plaintiff got off Scot free while the defendants had to pay. :twisted:
Rudolph,
THis is one of the issues that Joe raised last night. This should never have gone that far. A good understanding and legal savvy lawyer would have been able to quash this with one letter. One that goes on the offensive, not a defense.
In April 2008 I was served unexpectedly with a “*Plaintiff’s Claim” *in the amount of $10,000.00 for alleged negligence during an inspection in **February of 2002. **The claimant never contacted me by phone or mail in **more than six years. **
[/QUOTE]
Rudolph,
One item you can place in your preinspection agreement is a length of time such as six months and then there signature on it is a legal document wich does prevent them from something this stupid.
As Joe advised the other night, this is a reasonable amount of time. If you put in something like 30 days, this would not be reasonable. If they come 2, 3, or in your case 6 years later, they can be pointed to this legal document and told the same thing the Bishop was told in the Monty Python skit… This is NULL and VOID under all conditions. (That is why they got the nude in the wheel barrow… ya gotta watch it to understand.)