Scammers

Yes they are all scammers. PLEASE past this on to anyone is has been sued or is being sued by this scamming family.. Albert and his paralegal friend continue to recieve the small claims court by saying that the STATUE OF LIMITATION IS 6 yrs when the law changed in 2002. If you or if you know anyone who was sued by Albert Mc Donagh in small claims court past the 2 yr STATUE OF LIMITATION ACT can counter sue ALBERT for their money back as well as damages. Albert is a CROOK and he need's to be brought to JUSTICE!! Attached is the LIMITATION ACT and 2 cases pertaining to the ACT.S.O. 2002, CHAPTER 24
Schedule B
Consolidation Period: From October 25, 2010 to the e-Laws currency date.
Last amendment: 2010, c. 16, Sched. 4, s. 27.
Basic Limitation Period
Basic limitation period
4. Unless this Act provides otherwise, a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was discovered. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 4.
Discovery
5. (1) A claim is discovered on the earlier of,
(a) the day on which the person with the claim first knew,
(i) that the injury, loss or damage had occurred,
(ii) that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission,
(iii) that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is made, and
(iv) that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it; and
(b) the day on which a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the person with the claim first ought to have known of the matters referred to in clause (a). 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 5 (1).
Stockman v. Hopkins, 2011 SKQB 133 (CanLII)
Date: 2011-03-30
Docket: Q.B.G. No. 1434 of 2010
URL: http://canlii.ca/t/fl6cb

Citation: Stockman v. Hopkins, 2011 SKQB 133 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fl6cb> retrieved on 2012-02-09
Share:
Print: PDF Format


[12] On the facts in this matter, the invoice of April 27, 2005 was not received by the appellants until after the effective date of the new Act of May 1, 2005, and until the respondent knew or the law deemed he ought to have known the invoice would not be paid in full, the respondent did not suffer any injury, loss or damage, and therefore did not have a claim. If the respondent did not have a claimbefore the effective date of May 1, 2005, the claim was not discovered before the effective date, and the new Act applied. Section 5 of the new Act states, no proceeding shall be commenced with respect to a claim after two years from the day on which the claim is discovered.
[13] It is not necessary to decide on the facts in this case when exactly the law would hold the respondent ought to have known he had a claim, and therefore discovered it, beyond saying he ought to have known prior to May 6, 2007, a period of almost two years after the unpaid balance was outstanding following the $15, 000.00 payment made by the appellants on June 6, 2005. The statement of claim was issued on May 6, 2009 which is in excess of two years after the respondent ought to have known he had a claim. The respondent’s claim was brought after two years from the day on which the claim was discovered, and pursuant to s. 5 no proceeding should have been commenced.

BETWEEN: )
)
ERIC DUCHESNE
Plaintiff
– and –
BRIAN MARCEL ST-DENIS and DANIELLE LISE MENARD ST-DENIS
Respondents
-and-
STEVE GAUVREAU and JEAN-MARC BEDARD
Third Parties )
) )
) )
) )
) ))))))))))) Joseph Y. Obagi, for the Plaintiff
Bryan A. Carroll, for the Third Party Jean-Marc Bedard
Pat C. Peloso, for the Third Party Steve Gauvreau
)
)
) HEARD: January 5, 2011 and March 31, 2011
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUSTICE POLOWIN:
[1] This is an appeal of a decision of Master Beaudoin, as he then was, dated July 8, 2009. The Appellant, Eric Duchesne (“Duchesne”) brought a motion to amend his claim to add the Third Parties, Steve Gauvreau (“Gauvreau”) and Jean-Marc Bedard (“Bedard”) as Defendants. Master Beaudoin determined that the Plaintiff was statute barred from amending his Statement of Claim to add the Third Parties to the main action. He determined that Duchesne had not “discovered” his cause of action against the proposed Defendants until after January 1, 2004 (the date the new LimitationsAct, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24 came into force) and was therefore subject to a two year limitation period, as opposed to the six year limitation period, which was formerly in effect.
[2] This appeal requires a consideration of the transitional provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 and whether Duchesne knew or ought to have known of his claim. It is the position of the Appellant that he knew or ought to have known of his claim prior to January 1, 2004 and consequently, that he is subject to a six-year limitation period by operationof the transitional provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002. The Respondents take the position that the cause of action was not discovered by Duchesne, or discoverable by him through the exercise of due diligence, prior to January 1, 2004 and consequently, that the new two year limitation period applies and his claims are statute-barred. The relevant provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 are set out in Schedule “A” to this decision.
Yes this law is for all of ONTARIO, CANADA...