date of the action complained of. Section 10 (later s. 9) of the
10(1) No action, prosecution or other proceeding shall be brought or be
instituted against any officer, clerk, servant or employee of the Department, or the Public Trustee, or against any other person for an act done in
pursuance or execution or intended execution of any duty or authority
under this Act or the regulations, or in respect of any alleged neglect or
default in the execution of any such duty or authority, without the consent
of the Attorney General.
(2) All actions and prosecutions against any person for anything done or
omitted to be done in pursuance of this Act shall be commenced within six
months after the act or omission complained of has been committed, and
E. Jurisdiction to Grant Summary Judgment
[ 108] The defendants seek a summary judgment dismissing
the action on the basis that there is no genuine issue requiring a
trial because the action is statute-barred having been commenced in the case of each plaintiff after the expiry of the applicable limitation period.
[ 109] Although the plaintiffs did not bring a formal cross-motion for summary judgment, in their factum, the plaintiffs
requested that the defendants’ summary judgment motion
be dismissed with a ruling dismissing their limitation period
[ 110] The court does not require a cross-motion for summary
judgment when it can decide the issue that is the subject matter
of the motion for summary judgment: King Lofts Toronto I Ltd.
v. Emmons,  O.J. No. 1333, 2014 ONCA 215, affg 
O.J. No. 4418, 2013 ONSC 6113 (S.C.J.). On a summary judgment motion, a successful respondent cannot choose to have
a trial; where a motion for a summary judgment leads to the
conclusion there is no genuine issue for trial, the adverse party
should be granted judgment: MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. of Canada (2014), 123 O.R. (3d) 789,  O.J. No.
6190, 2014 ONSC 7457 (S.C.J.); Kassburg v. Sun Life Assurance
Co. of Canada (2014), 124 O.R. (3d) 171,  O.J. No. 6222,
2014 ONCA 922, at paras. 50-52.
[ 111] As foreshadowed at the outset of these reasons for decision, and as I shall next explain, it is my conclusion that there is
no genuine issue requiring a trial that the plaintiffs’ breach of
fiduciary duty claim is not statute-barred nor is it barred by the
defence of laches. Moreover, it is my conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to a partial summary judgment of their
claim for breach of fiduciary duty subject to a trial or additional summary judgment motions to prove victimization, harm,