A defendant can also benefit from the procedure by being better informed of the applicant`s rights and positions. Thus, toll agreements can help inform parties about disputes and avoid certain costs. This decision is a warning to parties entering into toll agreements that the terms of these agreements can and can be used later to defeat claims that do not comply with the terms of the toll agreement and that may reduce procedural arguments that there has been no limitation at all. The plaintiff can take advantage of the defendant`s fear by asking the defendant to cooperate in another way. Thus, under the toll agreement, the applicant could require the defendant to provide documents and/or answer questions about the litigation. The adjudicator Boyce found that the applicant could not successfully argue that there had never been a restriction. The conduct of the parties as a result of the applicant`s application to the Tribunal is based on the assumption that the insurer`s refusal was not only appropriate, but that the applicant was well aware that her application had been rejected and that the limitation period had been triggered. In particular, the applicant asked the Tribunal, within the statute of limitations, for the refusal, and then extended the statute of limitations by its own consent. Moreover, the applicant`s decision to withdraw its right to the IRB at the case conference level, while accepting the limitation period for consent, is imperative evidence that it considered the insurer`s refusal to be valid. Under the toll agreement, counsel for the applicant should have a firm understanding of all prescription issues. Information gathered informally during negotiations should not be subject to costly requests for investigation.
The toll agreement must specify the length of time the parties suspend the statute of limitations. The threat of possible litigation is the elephant in space that makes an agreement on tolls effective. A savvy potential complainant may use this elephant as an advantage, as a potential accused may well lean back to not be prosecuted. Bollinger sought a partial summary judgment against National Union and Chartis on the grounds that there was no applicable exclusion, that the right had been invoked during the period covered and that he was at least entitled to defence costs. The court rejected Bollinger`s request and found the political language quite clear. Under political parlance, the claim against Bollinger was not made during the political period, but for the first time two and a half years earlier, after the implementation of the toll agreement.