Looking for some legal advice

[Buff]

Originally Posted by skudr248

You should have been registered on this business owners fleet insurance if you were authorized to drive a company vehicle (they should have asked for your drivers license etc. when hired or when given permission to drive said vehicle and get you on their insurance). You would not have to pay for damage, though your boss has all the right in firing you for it. Go talk to a lawyer regardless.

This may not be true. My employer's insurance doesn't require them to list any staff members on the vehicle insurance. We have 6 vehicles and roughly 30 staff.

[leah12]

Keep us updated!

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Bawbag

He fired me right after the accident


Upon further review of the letter it's a civil claim

Now the letter game me 20 days to dispute. It is dated for the 27th of this month it arrived today so I don't even have a chance to dispute it

Did he fire you because of the accident?

If so, sue him for wrongful dismissal, you'll be amazed on how fast that civil claim goes away, after he drops that be nice and settle for 3 months wages

[Bawbag]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Did he fire you because of the accident?

If so, sue him for wrongful dismissal, you'll be amazed on how fast that civil claim goes away, after he drops that be nice and settle for 3 months wages

Yes he did

He also withheld my last pay cheque for months, but I got that eventually

[troutman]

Did this happen more than 2 years ago?

[Bawbag]

Originally Posted by troutman

Did this happen more than 2 years ago?

Over a year ago. Not 2 years

He also has dates wrong on his claim

[afc wimbledon]

Not hiring a lawyer is always a false economy that will cost you more in the long run.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by troutman

Did this happen more than 2 years ago?

Just curious why that matters? I've never really understood the limitations on when you can seek a financial judgement.

[troutman]

https://albertacourts.ca/provincial-...fore-you-sue#5

Time limits to sue

You should know that, in many cases, you cannot sue after a certain period of time has gone by (the limitation period). The time limit depends on the reason for suing.

For general debt problems, such as contracts, loans, damage deposits and rent you must sue within two years from the time the debt began. An exception to this rule exists: if it has been stated in writing that the person knows the money is still owed, or if the person has paid part of the debt, the two-year limit starts when the debt was last acknowledged.

If you are suing for injuries or damages caused to yourself or your property (for example, assault, car accident, etc.), you must sue within two years of the injury or damages. If you wish to sue your own insurance company for failure to pay you as a result of an accident, you must do so within one year.

This is a complex area of law and you should consult a lawyer if there is any doubt about the limitation period affecting your case. Please see our links page for more resources.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Not hiring a lawyer is always a false economy that will cost you more in the long run.

Will Kits - "hold my beer".

[indes]

Originally Posted by troutman

Will Kits - "hold my beer".

Are Will Kits bad? I was considering doing one of them since I don't have a will.

Sorry for the OT

[troutman]

Originally Posted by indes

Are Will Kits bad? I was considering doing one of them since I don't have a will.

Sorry for the OT

They can work well in certain situations, but a formal Will with a lawyer does not cost that much more, and gives you far better protection. I see many defective Wills made with kits, that end up costing the estate a fortune to fix.

I think Bill Smith's will kits are $150. Wills for a couple with a lawyer can be had for around $400.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by troutman

https://albertacourts.ca/provincial-...fore-you-sue#5

Time limits to sue

You should know that, in many cases, you cannot sue after a certain period of time has gone by (the limitation period). The time limit depends on the reason for suing.

For general debt problems, such as contracts, loans, damage deposits and rent you must sue within two years from the time the debt began. An exception to this rule exists: if it has been stated in writing that the person knows the money is still owed, or if the person has paid part of the debt, the two-year limit starts when the debt was last acknowledged.

If you are suing for injuries or damages caused to yourself or your property (for example, assault, car accident, etc.), you must sue within two years of the injury or damages. If you wish to sue your own insurance company for failure to pay you as a result of an accident, you must do so within one year.

This is a complex area of law and you should consult a lawyer if there is any doubt about the limitation period affecting your case. Please see our links page for more resources.

It is complicated. This is the part I don't get...

Section 3(1)(b) sets out a second, longer limitation period. Here, a claim must be brought within 10 years of the event forming the basis of the claim. The 10-year limitation clock begins to run regardless of whether or not the plaintiff has discovered the existence of a legal action. Thus, Section 3(1)(b) creates an absolute limit on a claimant’s ability to sue. A lender who discovers their debt claim after the ten-year period has passed will likely be out of luck.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It is complicated. This is the part I don't get...

It's actually not all that complicated. It's two years from the time you knew or ought to have known you had a claim, or ten years from when the claim actually arose, whichever elapses first.

For example, if you discover that your house was negligently constructed in 2017, but it was built in 2006, you are out of luck as the ten years is up.

If you discovered (or should have if you had acted reasonably) the negligent construction on January 1, 2014, you were out of luck on January 1, 2016, and the ten-year period didn't really matter.

[OMG!WTF!]

Thank you very much for that info. No one has ever explained it like that. I can see where the complications arise, like what is a reasonable time frame for knowing about the defect, debt or damages. But the actual rule is now pretty clear. Most appreciated.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Thank you very much for that info. No one has ever explained it like that. I can see where the complications arise, like what is a reasonable time frame for knowing about the defect, debt or damages. But the actual rule is now pretty clear. Most appreciated.

No worries. And for sure, the issues that arise from that can be way more complicated, even if the general principle is pretty straightforward.