Dan – Page 25 – Under the Limit

Ontario: Highways are still subject to limitation periods

The Court of Appeal allowed the 407’s appeal of Justice Edward’s decision in 407 ETR Concession Company Limited v. Day. Apart from settling the great question of how the passage of time limits 407’s claims for unpaid tolls, Justice Laskin’s decision suggests a maturity in s. 5(1)(a)(iv) jurisprudence.

The circumstances of the claim are rather bewildering. The defendant Day, a person of some means, refused to pay the approximately $13,000 plus interest he owed 407 for unpaid tolls. 407 sued him. Day pleaded a limitations defence, and 407 brought a r. 21 motion to resolve questions of limitations law. Justice Edwards determined when 407 discovered its claims against Day and rejected the validity of an agreement between Day and 407 extending the limitation period. 407 appealed.

Facts

Some facts are necessary to understand the limitations issue.

407 can collect its unpaid tolls by civil action in the courts or by license plate denial. The statutory authorization for these two methods is set out in the Highway 407 Act, 1998.

When a person drives a vehicle on the 407, s. 13(1) of the 407 Act provides that the person in whose name the vehicle’s license plate is registered is liable to pay the tolls and related charges.

Sections 15(1) and (2) of the 407 Act provide that tolls are due and payable on the day 407 sends a toll invoice, and that interest begins to accrue 35 days later. Section 15(3) provides the 407 with a cause of action for nonpayment .

407 can also initiate a license plate denial. Under s. 16(1) of the 407 Act, if a toll isn’t paid within 35 days after 407 sends an invoice, 407 may send the person responsible for payment a notice of failure to pay. If the debt remains unpaid 90 days later, s. 22(1) of the 407 Act entitles 407 to notify the Registrar of Motor Vehicles of the failure. This notice puts the defaulting debtor into license plate denial. Section 22(3) requires 407 to inform the recipient of a notice sent under s. 16(1) that 407 has given notice to the Registrar.

Once 407 notifies the Registrar, s. 22(4) provides that the Registrar must refuse to validate the vehicle permit issued to the recipient of the s. 16 notice at its next opportunity, and refuse to issue a vehicle permit to that person. The Registrar’s next opportunity is typically the date the validation for a vehicle permit expires and must be renewed. The Vehicle Permits Regulation under the Highway Traffic Act provides that the maximum validation period for a vehicle permit is two years.

Lastly, s. 25 of the 407 Act provides that license plate denial is a complementary rather than exclusive remedy.

The r. 21 motion

407 raised two issues on the motion.

The first issue was the discovery of 407’s claim. Justice Edwards held that 407 discovered its claim on the earliest date under the 407 Act that it could have notified the Registrar to put Day into license plate denial.

The second issue was the enforceability of the 15-year limitation period in Day’s transponder lease agreement with 407. Justice Edwards held that 407 could not rely on s. 22 of the Limitations Act, which permits parties to contract out of the basic limitation period, because the lease agreement was not a “business agreement” as defined by that section.

The Court of Appeal’s analysis

Discovery of 407’s claim turned on s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act: when, having regard to the nature of the loss, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it.

Assessing the date when a civil action became an appropriate means for 407 to recover its loss required considering the purpose of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) in the context of the statutory regime under which 407 operates.

To give effect to the legislature’s intent in the 407 Act, the limitation period must be tied to the license plate denial process: ” The legislature enacted that process for a reason: it was not content to force 407 ETR to sue in the courts for unpaid toll debts. I fully agree with the Divisional Court that licence plate denial is an effective, necessary and indeed integral feature of an open access toll highway. Tying the start date of the limitation period to the licence plate denial process acknowledges the significance the legislature attached to that process for the collection of unpaid tolls.”

A civil action becomes appropriate when 407 has reason to believe that it will not otherwise be paid. This is when the usually effective license plate denial process runs its course. This happens when a vehicle permit expires for failure to a pay a toll debt; thereafter, a claim becomes an appropriate remedy to recover the debt and the limitation period commences.

Justice Laskin cited four reasons in support of this conclusion.

[40]      First, under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002, the date a proceeding would be an appropriate means to recover a loss must have “regard to the nature of the … loss”. So, in fixing the appropriate date, it may not be enough that the loss exists and the claim is actionable. If the claim is the kind of claim that can be remedied by another and more effective method provided for in the statute, then a civil action will not be appropriate until that other method has been used. Here, a claim will not be appropriate until 407 ETR has used that other method, without success.

[41]      […] licence plate denial – is far more effective than a civil action. By providing for licence plate denial, the legislature must be taken to have recognized its effectiveness. People who cannot renew their vehicle permits until they deal with their toll debts have a powerful incentive to pay.

[42]      The statistical evidence bears out the effectiveness of licence plate denial. 407 ETR issues over one million invoices a month. Nearly 70 per cent of those invoices are paid within one month, which means just over 30 per cent are not. Significantly, about 75 per cent of permit holders in default pay their toll debts after being advised the Registrar has sent a s. 22 notice. Of those, just over one half pay before or on the date their vehicle permits have to be renewed; the remainder pay after their vehicle permits have expired.

[43]      These statistics show that the motion judge’s start date – the delivery of a s. 22 notice to the Registrar – is too early in the process. It comes at the beginning of the process instead of where I think it should come, at the end. The licence plate denial process should be allowed to run its course. As the statistics show, most people, fearing the consequences, eventually pay after receiving a s. 22 notice. Only if the process fails to prompt payment does litigation become an appropriate means to recover the debt.

[44]      Second, in determining when a claim ought to have been discovered, s. 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, 2002 requires the court to take account of “the circumstances of the person with the claim”. 407 ETR’s “circumstances” differ from those of many other creditors. Highway 407 itself is enormously busy: 380,000 trips on an average workday. As a consequence, 407 ETR must process an enormous number of invoices, almost all for amounts of no more than a few hundred dollars apiece. And unlike, for example a credit card company, which can cancel a customer’s credit card for non-payment of a debt, 407 ETR cannot bar a defaulting debtor’s access to the highway.

[45]      407 ETR’s “circumstances” strongly suggest that requiring it to sue before finding out whether licence plate denial has achieved its purpose would be inappropriate. An important case on the significance of a plaintiff’s “circumstances” is the majority judgment in Novak v. Bond, 1999 CanLII 685 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808. In that case, McLachlin J. considered s. 6(4)(b) of British Columbia’s Limitations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, which provided that time did not begin to run against a plaintiff until “the person whose means of knowledge is in question ought, in the person’s own interests and taking the person’s circumstances into account, to be able to bring an action” […].

[46]      […] holding that time begins to run against 407 ETR before it knows whether licence plate denial has prompted payment would be unfair, or to use the word of our statute, would not be “appropriate”.

[47]      Holding that the two-year period begins after the licence plate denial process fails to prompt payment does not raise the concern Sharpe J.A. referred to in Markel Insurance Co. of Canada v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada, 2012 ONCA 218 (CanLII),109 O.R. (3d) 652, at para. 34. There, he said that “appropriate” must mean “legally appropriate”. By using that phrase he signified that a plaintiff could not claim it was appropriate to delay the start of the limitation period for tactical reasons, or in circumstances that would later require the court to decide when settlement discussions had become fruitless. In this case, however, 407 ETR seeks to delay the start of the limitation period for a legally appropriate reason: waiting until a statutorily authorized process has been completed.

[48]      A third consideration is what I take to be an important purpose of s. 5(1)(a)(iv). The overall purposes of limitation statutes are well-established and well-known: certainty, finality and the unfairness of subjecting defendants to the threat of a lawsuit beyond a reasonable period of time. But it seems to me one reason why the legislature added “appropriate means” as an element of discoverability was to enable courts to function more efficiently by deterring needless litigation. As my colleague Juriansz J.A. noted in his dissenting reasons in Hare v. Hare (2006), 2006 CanLII 41650 (ON CA), 83 O.R. (3d) 766 (C.A.), at para. 87, courts take a dim view of unnecessary litigation.

[49]      If the limitation period runs concurrently with the licence plate denial process, as would be the case under the motion judge’s start date, then there would be the real possibility of numerous Small Claims Court claims. And these claims would be needless because the vast majority of defendants would likely pay their debts to avoid having their vehicle permits expire. […]

[51]      Finally, although 407 ETR has discretion when and even whether to send a s. 22 notice to the Registrar, that discretion does not detract from the appropriateness of using the end of the licence plate denial process as the start of the two-year limitation period. In theory, I suppose, as Mr. Day contends, 407 ETR could use its discretion to manipulate the start date. But why, one may ask rhetorically, would it do so? Its commercial interests dictate otherwise.

Justice Laskin also overturned Justice Edwards’s decision on the second limitations issue: whether the lease agreement could extend the applicable limitation period. Justice Edwards correctly found that the lease agreement was not a business agreement. However, under s. 22(3) of the Limitations Act, parties can agree to contract out of the basic limitation period even in the absence of a business agreement:

[62] Under s. 22(3), parties can only suspend or extend the two-year limitation period. Under s. 22(5), parties may vary or exclude altogether the two-year period. Importantly, in s. 22(6) “vary” is defined to include “extend, shorten and suspend”. Thus, parties to an agreement under s. 22(3), such as the transponder lease agreement, in which one party is a consumer, can suspend or extend the two-year limitation period. They cannot, however, shorten it. Only parties to a business agreement can also agree to shorten the two-year period. As Mr. Day’s transponder lease agreement extends the two-year limitation period to 15 years, it is enforceable under s. 22(3).

Day also argued that the 15-year limitation period was unenforceable at common law. The common law imposes specific requirements on an agreement to vary a limitation period. These include expressly referring to and excluding the application of the statutory limitation period. Justice Laskin held that the Court of Appeal decision in Boyce is determinative of the issue:

[68]      The resolution of this issue and its interplay with s. 22 is governed by this court’s decision is Boyce v. The Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2013 ONCA 298 (CanLII), 116 O.R. (3d) 56, leave to appeal refused, [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 296. […]

[70]      This court allowed Co-operators’ appeal. The panel held that the agreement was a business agreement, and at para. 16 held that an agreement could be enforceable under s. 22 without any of the requirements imposed by the motion judge:

We cannot accept that an agreement purporting to vary the statutory limitation period is enforceable under s. 22 of the Limitations Act, 2002 only if it contains the specific requirements set out by the motion judge. Nothing in the language of s. 22 offers any support for imposing these requirements. The only limitation in s. 22(5) is found in the definition of “business agreement”. No other limitation appears, expressly or by implication, and certainly no content related requirements appear in s. 22(5).

[71]      Instead, at para. 20, this court set out what was required for the enforceability of an agreement under s. 22:

A court faced with a contractual term that purports to shorten a statutory limitation period must consider whether that provision in “clear language” describes a limitation period, identifies the scope of the application of that limitation period, and excludes the operation of other limitation periods. A term in a contract which meets those requirements will be sufficient for s. 22 purposes, assuming, of course, it meets any of the other requirements specifically identified in s. 22.

[…]

[74]      Specifically in response to Mr. Day’s contention, it is unnecessary to refer expressly to the exclusion of the two-year period. There was no express reference to it in the agreement in the Boyce case, yet this court held the agreement was enforceable under s. 22. Similarly, I would hold that the transponder lease agreement signed by Mr. Day is enforceable under s. 22(3) of theLimitations Act, 2002 and is not rendered unenforceable at common law.

Why this decision matters

I think the real significance of this decision is a s. 5(1)(a)(iv) analysis that suggests s. 5(1)(a)(iv) jurisprudence is maturing into a settled, useful aspect of the discovery analysis. I note in particular Justice Laskin’s recognition of the novelty of s. 5(1)(a)(iv):

[33] The appropriateness of bringing an action was not an element of the former limitations statute or the common law discoverability rule. This added element can have the effect – as it does in this case – of postponing the start date of the two-year limitation period beyond the date when a plaintiff knows it has incurred a loss because of the defendant’s actions.

Given the Court of Appeal’s enthusiasm for citing the common law discoverability rule and applying it to limitations analyses under the current Act, this is noteworthy and refreshing. I’ve written about the damage wrought by the Court of Appeal decision in Lawless, which is frequently cited for its statement of common law discoverability. If you use the common law test (knowledge of the material facts of a cause of action) to determine the date of discovery, it becomes awkward if not impossible to apply the s. 5(1)(a)(iv), because it’s not a material fact of any cause of action.

I also think Justice Laskin’s consideration of the meaning of “appropriate” is significant:

[34] Also, when an action is “appropriate” depends on the specific factual or statutory setting of each individual case: see Brown v. Baum, 2016 ONCA 325 (CanLII), 397 D.L.R. (4th) 161, at para. 21. Case law applying s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002 is of limited assistance because each case will turn on its own facts.

In Markel, the Court of Appeal defined “appropriate” as “legally appropriate” and discouraged courts from giving it an “evaluative gloss”. In this paragraph, Justice Laskin cites Brown rather than Markel. Justice Feldman held in Brown that what is legally appropriate turns on the facts (it was not legally appropriate for the plaintiff in Brown to sue her doctor while he continued to treat her). Justice Laskin later in his decision considered Markel, and found that it was legally appropriate for 407 not to sue Day until the statutorily authorised plate denial process completed.

The Court of Appeal may have defined “appropriate” as “legally appropriate”, but as a practical matter the meaning of “legally appropriate” seems to be settling as “what is appropriate in the circumstances of the case”. I think this is a reasonable approach, though it doesn’t bring any more certainty to the commencement of limitation periods.

Interestingly, Justice Laskin does not cite Justice Juriansz’s decision in Clarke, where he gave “appropriate” an especially expansive meaning (“appropriate” means having good reason to believe there is a legal claim). Clarke‘s influence on s. 5(1)(a)(iv) jurisprudence may prove to be limited.

Justice Laskin’s analysis also raises some interesting questions:

A civil action became appropriate when 407 had reason to believe that it will not otherwise be paid. Does this reasoning apply to other claims arising out of non-payment of invoices? If I bill you for my services, does my claim become appropriate only when it becomes reasonable for me to believe that you won’t pay me?

The fact that 407 could remedy its claim against Day by “another and more effective method” was a consideration in the s. 5(1)(a)(iv) analysis. The more effective remedy was statutory, which I think will limit the relevance of this decision to other s. 5(1)(a)(iv) analyses. Still, what if another more effective non-statutory remedy is available? For example, what if the statistics indicate that engaging a collection agency to recover my many small debts is more effective than small claims court? Will a legal claim only become appropriate when the collection agency’s efforts fail?

Ontario: The limitation of claims for trusts over real property

Justice Doyle’s decision in Campbell v. Nicol contains a helpful summary of the limitation of claims for the imposition of a constructive trust on real property:

[71]         With respect to equitable claims, the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with this issue in McConnell v. Huxtable, 2014 ONCA 86 (CanLII), 118 O.R. (3d) 561, where the court dealt with a claim for the remedial constructive trust over real property based on an allegation of unjust enrichment. The Court held that the applicable limitation period was the 10 year period under s. 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act.

[72]         The question for the Court was whether a claim for unjust enrichment in which the claimant asks the court to impose a constructive trust upon the respondent’s real property is an action to recover any land. The Court answered in the affirmative. The Court concluded that the constructive trust remedy for unjust enrichment as well as the purposes and contextual interpretation of the Real Property Limitations Act justified a finding that the claim fell within this category.

[73]         The Court also found that the applicant’s alternative claim for monetary compensation was also governed by the 10-year limitation, not the two-year limitation period pursuant to the Limitations Act, 2002.

Analysis

[74]         The applicant issued his application six years after the date of separation. Given the decision in McConnell, the court finds that the proper limitation period for the claim in unjust enrichment is 10 years under the Real Property Limitations Act.

[75]         A claim based unjust enrichment has two remedies. The Court must first consider a monetary remedy and secondly a property remedy: see Kerr v. Baranow; Vanasse v. Seguin, 2011 SCC 10 (CanLII), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269.

[76]         Here, the applicant did couch the remedy he was seeking as a property claim for the unjust enrichment claim. The Ontario Court of Appeal in McConnell confirmed that the limitation period for an unjust enrichment claim requesting a property remedy is 10 years. Even though a trial court will, upon finding unjust enrichment, must first determine if the unjust enrichment can first be remedied by a monetary claim as stated in Kerr and Vanasse, the McConnell case states that the claim for unjust enrichment has a limitation period of 10 years even if the alternate claim is for monetary compensation.

Ontario: If you sue, you’ve discovered your claim

Limitations issues have a way of encouraging creative but hopeless arguments.

Take for example Richards v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. The plaintiff argued that the first clear and unequivocal denial of his benefits claim was contained in the defendant insurer’s statement of defence. Justice Bale had none of this:

[19] As previously noted, the plaintiff argued that the first clear and unequivocal denial of his claim was contained in Sun Life’s statement of defence. Assuming this to be the case, “clear and unequivocal denial” cannot be the applicable test, since the plaintiff would then have commenced his action prior to discovering his claim, a logically inconsistent result.

By commencing a proceeding in respect of a claim, a claimant necessarily acknowledges discovery of the claim. It is, as Justice Bale put it, logically fraught to both assert a claim and an argument that you have yet to discover it.

Justice Bale’s decision also contains a helpful discussion of rolling limitation periods:

[25]         The plaintiff argues that a rolling limitation period applies, and that the plaintiff is only barred from claiming the disability benefits that would have been payable more than two years before the action was commenced. I disagree.

[26]         A rolling limitation period may apply to claims for periodic payments, in cases where the issue is whether certain payments to which the plaintiff is entitled have been made (e.g. payments of rent), as opposed to cases where the issue is whether the plaintiff was entitled to the periodic payments in the first place. In the former type of case, the material facts will have arisen on a periodic basis, and it will not be unfair to require a defendant to litigate those facts during the applicable limitation period following the date upon which an individual payment became due. However, in the latter type of case, the material facts will have arisen at the time that the plaintiff alleges he or she first became entitled to periodic payments, and it would be unfair to require the defendant to litigate those facts, for a potentially unlimited period of time.

[27]         In the present case, the issue is whether the plaintiff was entitled to disability benefits, at the time of his application to Sun Life, and the concept of a rolling limitation period does not apply.

Ontario: Common law discoverability, and how it applies to the Competition Act

In Fanshaw College v. AU Optronics, Justice Grace held that the limitation period applicable to Competition Act claims is subject to discoverability. We wrote about it here. The Court of Appeal has upheld this decision.

The appellant argued that the discoverability principle shouldn’t apply for the same reason that it doesn’t apply to section 38(3) of the Trustee Act: the limitation period is linked to a fixed event (in the case of the Trustee Act, death). The Court rightly rejected this argument. The limitation period in section 36(4)(a)(i) is linked to the accrual of the cause of action—the wrongful conduct—not a fixed event. The term “conduct” in section 36(4)(a)(i) refers to the conduct giving rise to damages mentioned in section 36(1) (the statutory cause of action) and is a constituent element of the cause of action that is subject to the limitation period.

Apart from its significance to the competition bar, the decision is noteworthy because it includes a thorough discussion of the common law discoverability principle. Common law discoverability became mostly academic in Ontario when the legislature codified it into sections 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, but it remains relevant in certain circumstances. I’m involved in a proceeding (ever more like Jarndyce and Jarndyce) that is subject to the previous limitations scheme and common law discoverability.

This is the Court’s discussion of discoverability:

[32]      The discoverability principle is a common law rule providing that “a cause of action arises for purposes of a limitation period when the material facts on which it is based have been discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff by the exercise of reasonable diligence”: Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse, 1986 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147, at p. 224; see also Graeme Mew, Debra Rolph & Daniel Zacks, The Law of Limitations, 3rd ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2016), at p. 75.

[33]      Discoverability is also an interpretive rule relevant to the construction of limitation statutes: Ryan v. Moore, 2005 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 53, at para. 23. As explained below, it provides certain presumptions for courts interpreting statutory limitation periods.

[34]      The approach for determining whether a particular statutory limitation period is subject to the discoverability principle was discussed by Twaddle J.A. in Fehr v. Jacob (1993), 1993 CanLII 4407 (MB CA), 14 C.C.L.T. (2d) 200 (Man. C.A.), at p. 206:

[T]he judge-made discoverability rule is nothing more than a rule of construction. Whenever a statute requires an action to be commenced within a specified time from the happening of a specific event, the statutory language must be construed. When time runs from “the accrual of the cause of action” or from some other event which can be construed as occurring only when the injured party has knowledge of the injury sustained, the judge-made discoverability rule applies. But, when time runs from an event which clearly occurs without regard to the injured party’s knowledge, the judge-made discoverability rule may not extend the period the legislature has prescribed.

The Supreme Court of Canada has endorsed this passage in Peixeiro v. Haberman, 1997 CanLII 325 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549, at para. 37, and in Ryan, at para. 23.

[35]      Ryan is the latest statement from the Supreme Court of Canada on this issue. In that decision, at para. 24, Bastarache J. concluded as follows:

Thus, the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador is correct in stating that the rule is “generally” applicable where the commencement of the limitation period is related by the legislation to the arising or accrual of the cause of action. The law does not permit resort to the judge-made discoverability rule when the limitation period is explicitly linked by the governing legislation to a fixed event unrelated to the injured party’s knowledge or the basis of the cause of action.

[36]      The applicability of discoverability is a matter of statutory construction. The jurisprudence noted above only provides presumptions and, in Ryan, at para. 23, Bastarache J. cautioned against applying the principle automatically or “systematically without a thorough balancing of competing interests”.

Ontario: Stopping time when adding a new claim to a proceeding

A limitations practice tip—when amending a pleading to add a new claim, it’s the filing of the motion record that stops time running, not service of the motion record. Master Albert recently made this point in Becerra v. Ronchin:

41) The limitations clock does not stop running until a proceeding is launched. In the case of a motion to amend a pleading, the proceeding is launched either when the motion record is served (arguably) or more correctly when the motion record is filed with the court. This is akin to the issuance of an action or application stopping the limitations clock where a plaintiff is launching a fresh proceeding. Service of an intention to issue a proceeding prior to issuance does not initiate the proceeding. Similarly, service of a notice of motion together with a without prejudice letter and without a motion record does not constitute the launching of a proceeding to amend a pleading in an existing action.

Ontario: statutory limitation periods apply to will challenges

Justice DiTomaso’s decision in Taylor-Reid v. Taylor is another that cites Leibel for the principle that will challenges are subject to the basic limitation period. The issue is gradually becoming settled. These are the relevant paragraphs:

[106] Even if Andrea could demonstrate a genuine issue for trial based on evidence of actual “physical damage” and/or that services were actually performed pursuant to an actual agreement, Andrea is statute barred from commencing a claim against the Estate pursuant to s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and the case of Leibel v. Leibel.

[107] In the case of Leibel v. Leibel, the court determined that, in a Will challenge, the limitation period commences on the date of death, being September 22, 2011. This, however, is subject to the discoverability rule outlined in s. 5 of theLimitations Act, 2002. In Leibel v. Leibel, the Plaintiff (Will challenger) was found to have discovered the claim within 60 days of the date of death and, since the claim was commenced outside of the two year limitation period, it was statute barred.

Ontario: Adverse possession is a limitations issue

Justice McKinnon’s decision in Osman v. Heath sets out nicely the principles of adverse possession. Perhaps surprisingly to those who don’t practice in the area, these are limitations principles determined by the Real Property Limitations Act. Here are the relevant paragraphs:

The Law

[49]         The cases on adverse possession are legion and each case turns on its own set of particular facts. In Ontario, adverse possession claims are governed by sections 4, 13, and 15 of the Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, which establishes a ten-year limitation period in which a dispossessed owner must bring an action to recover possession once a right to possession has accrued. By section 15, when a person has not attempted to recover the land within ten years after the right to bring an action or make entry or distress accrued, the right and title of the owner of the land is extinguished. A person claiming a possessory title as against the legal owner must establish the following:

   Actual possession for the statutory period;

   That such possession was with the intention of excluding the true owner; and

   That the true owner’s possession was effectively excluded for the statutory period: Pflug v. Collins, 1951 CanLII 80 (ON SC), [1952] O.R. 519 (Ont. H.C.); Marotta v. Creative Investments Ltd. (2008), 69 R.P.R. (4th) 44 (Ont. S.C.); Keefer v. Arillotta (1976), 1976 CanLII 571 (ON CA), 13 O.R. (2d) 680 (C.A.).

[50]         The claimant must meet each of these three criteria and time will begin to run against the owner from the last date when all three are satisfied: Masidon Investments Ltd. v. Ham (1984), 1984 CanLII 1877 (ON CA), 45 O.R. (2d) 563 (C.A.).

[51]         Marotta is a particularly helpful decision; it sets out in detail the applicable law, and I shall briefly follow the analysis employed in that decision.

Actual possession

[52]         The claimant must establish actual possession for the ten-year period and the acts of possession must be open, notorious, constant, continuous, adverse and exclusive of the right of the true owner. In Teis v. Ancaster (Town) (1997),1997 CanLII 1688 (ON CA), 35 O.R. (3d) 216 (C.A.), at paras. 14, 16, Laskin J.A. explained the requirement of open and notorious possession in these words:

First, open possession shows that the claimant is using the property as an owner might. Second, open possession puts the true owner on notice that the statutory period had begun to run. Because the doctrine of adverse possession is based on the true owner’s failure to take action within the limitation period, time should not run unless the delay can fairly be held against the owner….

The element of adversity means that the claimant is in possession without the permission of the owner. If the claimant acknowledges the right of the true owner then the possession is not adverse.

[…]

[57]         Further, the “inconsistent use” test does not apply to cases of honest unilateral mistake: Cunningham v. Zebarth Estate (1998), 71 O.T.C. 317 (Ont. Gen. Div.). The “inconsistent use” test does not apply in circumstances in which the person in possession operates under the honestly held belief that he or she is the rightful owner of the property or in cases where the legal owner and person in possession operate under a mutual mistake as to title or boundaries. In such cases, an inference may be drawn that the occupier is in possession of the land with the intention of excluding all others including the legal owners.

[…]

Actual exclusion of the true owners

[59]         The final part of the test for possessory title requires that the true owner be excluded from possession. In analyzing this subject, the conduct of the owners in relation to the land is considered.

[60]         As I have stated, the true owners had effectively abandoned the large shed certainly when the business was moved to another location in Kemptville, and probably during the 1980s. When the Doucettes acquired the Residential Property they closed off all entrances to the large shed on the side of the Commercial Property. It was effectively sealed off from access by the true owner. The sealing off was accomplished openly and notoriously. The entire building was raised and leveled, concrete was poured, and work was carried out on the exterior. Photos show Mr. Doucette on a ladder performing renovations to the exterior of the large shed. The true owners had been excluded from the large shed since at least 1990.

Ontario: The impact of a lost SJM on a limitations defence

A defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis of an expired limitation period. The motion judge dismisses the motion. What impact does the dismissal have on the defendant’s limitations defence?

The answer, according to the Court of Appeal in Vanden Bussche Irrigation & Equipment Limited v. Kejay Investments Inc., is that an order dismissing the motion and nothing more has no impact on the defendant’s limitations defence:

[8] In Ashak v. Ontario (Family Responsibility Office), 2013 ONCA 375 (CanLII), this court, based on identical wording in the order, held at para. 7, that the order was not a final order because, “a decision under Rule 20 determines only that a genuine issue requiring a trial exists. Accordingly to the extent that a motion judge may purport to make findings of fact in reasons for judgment dismissing a Rule 20 motion, such findings do not have binding effect.”

[9] The court in Ashak further noted at paras. 8-11 that while a court has the power to make binding determinations of fact under rule 20.05 when dismissing a motion for summary judgment if a court proposes to exercise that power the motion judge should say so and the formal order should reflect that. A similar power to make a binding determination of law likely exists under rule 20.04(4), but again, if the motion judge purports to exercise that power, the judge should specifically invoke and reference the rule and the legal determination made should form part of the formal order.

The order taken out from the summary judgment motion stated: “THIS COURT ORDERS that the Defendant’s motion is hereby dismissed.” Accordingly, it could have no impact on the defendant’s limitations defence at trial:

[11] In this case, the motion judge did not specifically invoke and reference the rule giving him the power to make a binding determination nor does the order taken out reflect any determination on the issue of the limitation period. Although the limitation period defence was the only issue before the motion judge and he purported to decide it, he also refused to grant summary judgment on the claim to the plaintiff and sent the matter on for trial. It does not appear that there would be any reason for him to do so unless he was of the opinion that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial respecting the limitation period.

[12] In the result, I have concluded that the motion judge’s determination that the limitation period had not run is not binding and is not a final order. Accordingly, were I to grant leave to file a notice of appeal, this court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and for this reason the motion is dismissed.

Ontario: adding a party post expiry of the presmuptive limitation period

Edit, September 2016: Having just drafted a factum for a motion to add a defendant after the expiry of the presumptive limitation period, I realise some qualifications are necessary to this post. First, Klein is problematic because it’s without a discussion of evidence filed by the defendant setting out steps the plaintiff might have taken to discover its claim. Second, while Tarra discusses this aspect of seeking leave (see paragraph 53, quoted below), it merely quotes the leading case, Wakelin v. Gourley. Tarra is also problematic because it uses the language of causes of action, which has no place in a limitations analysis for reasons that we’ve discussed in some detail. I continue to find the most helpful cases to be Higgins, Wakelin, and Lima. I’ll pay more attention going forward!

There are two recent decisions that set out nicely the principles for adding a party to an action after the expiry of the presumptive limitation period.

The first decision is from the Divisional Court in Klein v. G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd. In upholding a decision from Master Short, which we wrote about here, Justice Stewart provides this summary of the law:

[22]         The expiry of a limitation period gives rise to a presumption of prejudice to the proposed defendant, which must be addressed by the bringing of a motion by the plaintiff to add the proposed new party. To rebut this presumption of prejudice and raise a genuine discoverability issue, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to lead evidence showing that the identity of the proposed added party was not known, or could not reasonably have been known, within the presumptive limitation period. That requires not only evidence of when the plaintiff actually knew that the party was an appropriate defendant, but also evidence as to when the plaintiff ought to have so known (see: Pepper v. Zellers, supra; Sloan v. Shave Heating Ltd. (2010)2010 ONSC 3871 (CanLII), O.J. No. 3002 (S.C.J.)).

[23]         This due diligence requirement is not satisfied by waiting for someone else to advise as to the correct party defendant. Counsel must give evidence of steps taken to ascertain the identity of the proposed defendant. Where there is a failure to demonstrate the steps taken to obtain information regarding the possible liability of the proposed defendant, this lack of evidence may result in a proper inference that no such steps were taken (see: Lokett v. Bontin, 2011 ONSC 2098 (CanLII), [2011] O.J. No. 1530 (S.C.J.); Wakelin v. Gourley [2006] O. J. No. 1442 (Div. Ct.)).

[24]         Reasonable efforts to discover the identity of the parties responsible must be made and disclosed in a supporting affidavit by the party seeking to add a new defendant after the initial two-year period. In most cases, a lawyer’s’ affidavit listing the attempts made by the lawyer to obtain information to substantiate the assertion that the party was reasonably diligent is expected (see: Wolkowicz v. Avignon Inc., 2011 ONSC 5899 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 5899 (S.C.J.)).

This is helpful. This area of limitations law has developed rather piecemeal so that the relevant principles are, as these paragraphs make evident, in a multiple decisions.

When drafting a factum for a motion to add a party, you couldn’t do much better than to use the following from Master Pope’s decision in Tarra Engineering Inc. v. Naghshbandi (especially paragraph 53, which deftly articulates the more nuanced aspect of the analysis):

Limitation Period

[47]         The applicable limitation period is contained in section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Schedule B:

                        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.

[48]         Section 5 of that Act addresses the requirements that must be considered to determine when a claim is “discovered”:

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).

[49]         Section 5(2) contains a presumption that a person with a claim is presumed to have known of the matters referred to in clause (1) (a) on the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place, unless the contrary is proved.

[50]         Lastly, section 21 prohibits the addition of a new party to an existing action after the limitation period has expired.

[51]         The authorities are clear that when a party is seeking to apply the discoverability rule, the court should afford a degree of latitude to that party before declaring that the limitation period has begun to run. In practical terms, the question is not whether the moving party believes, for example, that his injury meets the criteria but whether there is a sufficient body of evidence available to be placed before a judge that, in counsel’s opinion, has a reasonable chance of persuading a judge, on the balance of probabilities that the injury qualifies. Therefore, when such a body of material has been accumulated, then and only then should the limitation begin to run. (Wong v. Adler (2004), 2004 CanLII 8228 (ON SC), 70 O.R. (3d) 460 (S.C.J.))

[52]         The authorities are also clear that it is not appropriate for a motions judge or master to resolve a limitation issue where the application of the discoverability rule is central to its resolution, for the following reasons. It is a question of fact when the cause of action arose and thus when the limitation period commenced. The applicability of the discoverability rule is premised on the finding of these facts; that is, when Naghshbandi discovered that he had a cause of action against TESC or, when through the exercise of reasonable diligence, he ought to have known he had a cause of action against TESC. These facts constitute genuine issues for trial and as such, it is not appropriate for a motions judge or master to assume the role of a trial judge by resolving them.

[53]         The motions judge or master must examine the evidentiary record before it determines if there is an issue of fact or of credibility on the discoverability allegation. As long as the moving party puts in evidence steps taken to ascertain the identity of the tortfeasor and gives a reasonable explanation on proper evidence as to why such information was not obtainable with due diligence, then that will be the end of the enquiry and the proposed party will normally be added with leave to plead a limitations defence. This is not a high threshold. If the moving party fails to provide any reasonable explanation that could on a generous reading amount to due diligence the motion will be denied. If the moving party puts in evidence of steps taken but the proposed party also provides evidence of further reasonable steps that the moving party could have taken to ascertain the information within the limitation period, then the court will have to consider whether the moving party’s explanation clearly does not amount to due diligence. If there is any doubt whether the steps taken by the moving party could not amount to due diligence then this is an issue that must be resolved on a full evidentiary record at trial or on summary judgment. The strength of the moving party’s case on due diligence and the opinion of the master or judge hearing the motion whether the moving party will succeed at trial on the limitations issue is of little or no concern on the motion to add the party. The only concern is whether a reasonable explanation as to due diligence has been provided such as to raise a triable issue. (Wakelin v. Gourley, [2006] O.J. No. 1442 (Ont. Div. Ct.))

Ontario: insurers have no obligation to give notice of the limitation period

In Usanovic v. La Capitale Life Insurance Company, the plaintiff argued that the defendant insurer owed him a duty of good faith that included an obligation to provide him with notice of the limitation period.

Justice Broad rejected this argument in a well-reasoned decision. After reviewing the jurisprudence, he concluded that no such obligation exists:

[40]         It would appear that, at its highest, the obligation of good faith and fair dealing arguably carries with it a positive obligation on an insurer to inform its insured of the nature of the benefits available under the policy. There is a marked difference, however, between imposing on an insurer a positive obligation to advise with respect to rights and benefits internal to the policy and the imposition of an obligation to advise with respect to the application of law external to the policy, such as pursuant to the Limitations Act.

[41]         In my view the court should be circumspect in extending the common law to impose positive obligations of general application on parties, particularly where the implications of so doing are unknown. The law of insurance is broadly occupied by legislation and in my view it should be left to the legislature to regulate, if it deems it necessary and appropriate, the nature and extent of information which must be given by insurers to their insureds upon denial of benefits, including the existence and details of applicable limitation periods.

[42]         I find that there was no obligation in law on the defendant to advise the plaintiff of the applicable limitation period in the Limitations Act.

The decision also includes a good overview of the jurisprudence considering whether a denial of benefits is clear and unequivocal. See paras. 20-28.