Ontario

Ontario: a pleading read generously

When considering whether an amendment raises a fundamentally new claim and is therefore statute-barred, the court must read the pleading generously.  The decision in Virji v. Kotton is an example of what this generosity looks like.  The court “teased out” the necessary causes of action in a pleading drafted with “understatement”:

[26]           Accordingly, if the amended pleading is not to be seen as putting forward a new cause of action, an existing claim in fraud and conspiracy would have to be teased out of the language in paragraphs 35 and 50. Both of those suggest that the false representations of value issued by Bosley Farr were knowingly done. Knowledge, of course, is generally considered to be distinct from intention, and so it is questionable whether these two paragraphs really set out something like the causes of action that Plaintiff counsel attributes to them.

[27]           That said, context is everything when it comes to matters of interpretation. Under the circumstances, I do not think that what the Plaintiff meant by alleging that Bosley Farr “knowingly” made false representations is that Bosley Farr knew it was making representations of value; rather, I assume that what the Plaintiff meant was that Bosley Farr knew of the falsehood of the representations it was making but made them anyway. Read in this way, there is an element of intentionality embedded in the allegation of “knowingly”.
[28]           In addition, in the context of Bosley Farr having been retained to do a valuation by Kotton, the suggestion behind the value having been knowingly misrepresented is that it was done for Kotton’s benefit. While this is only indicated in an oblique fashion, nothing else would really make sense. I cannot assume that the Plaintiff meant to allege that Bosley Farr knowingly misrepresented the value of an investment property just for the sake of doing so. Instead, I understand the allegation to be that it did so for the purpose of collaborating with the party that retained it and that would stand to benefit from the misrepresented value – i.e. Kotton.
[29]           With all due respect, there is good reason that the Plaintiffs have sought to amend the Statement of Claim. As originally drafted, it does not convey its own meaning very well. However, if one brings a generous attitude to the task of deciphering it, and one digs deep enough into its barely stated implications, one can see that there is a glimmer of a fraud and conspiracy allegation peeking through the fog.
[30]           As Perell J. stated in Kaynes v. BP, PLC, 2019 ONSC 6464, at para 87, where a pleading is sought to be amended after the limitation period has expired, the key to the analysis is “whether substantially all of the material facts of the tendered cause of action have already been pleaded, in which case, the amendment will be allowed, or whether new material facts are sought to be added to support the cause of action, in which case, the amendment will not be allowed or if already pleaded, it will be struck.” The present pleading meets the test of the material facts of fraud and conspiracy having already been pleaded, but just barely.
[31]           It is safe to say that had counsel for the Plaintiffs not gone to some effort in this motion to point out the fact that the basic elements of fraud and conspiracy – intentionality and collusion – were already pleaded, I would have missed them. I assume most other readers, including the Defendants, might have missed them as well.
 [32]           I do not know whether the Statement of Claim was deliberately drafted with this level of understatement or whether the intentionality and collusion ingredients made their way into a couple of paragraphs by chance; however, I do see that now that my attention has been fully drawn to them and to the context in which they are stated. Given this recognition, I am compelled to conclude that the proposed amendments represent embellishments on causes of action that were already contained in the Statement of Claim.

 

Ontario: different limitation periods apply to different claims

Kinectrics Inc. v. FCL Fisker Custome & Logistics Inc. contains the clearest statement of the principle that different claims are subject to different limitations analyses even when they arise out of similar circumstances:

[78]           […] Different causes of action can attract a different limitations analysis even where the claims arose out of common circumstances: Winmill v. Woodstock (Police Services Board), 2017 ONCA 962, 138 O.R. (3d) 641, at paras. 17, 43, citing West v. Ontario, 2015 ONCA 147, at paras. 2-3; Fantl v. Transamerica Life Canada, 2013 ONSC 2298, 21 C.C.L.I. (5th) 175, at paras. 180-181, varied on other grounds, 2015 ONSC 1367, 125 O.R. (3d) 230 (Div. Ct.), 2016 ONCA 633, 133 O.R. (3d) 422. Even if the cargo claim does not involve a discoverability analysis as contended by Anderson Haulage, the negligence and contract claims that have been pleaded do give rise to an assessment of discoverability.

To my knowledge, that principle isn’t stated elsewhere so succinctly. The appellate decisions cited aren’t quite as explicit about the point as you’d like.

 

Ontario: evidentiary considerations in a motion to add after the limitation period’s presumptive expiry

Ali v. City of Toronto is a good example of an issue with the law of adding a party to a proceeding after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.

The Court held that there are circumstances where a plaintiff has a positive obligation to make inquiries or risk the court finding that the failure to do shows a lack of due diligence:

[22]              More recent case law has clarified that the principles in Madrid do not release plaintiffs or their counsel from their obligations to make any inquiries at all (Cote v. Ivanhoe Cambridge I Inc., 2018 ONSC 5588 at para. 33). There are circumstances where a plaintiff is expected to make inquiries or risk that the court may find that their failure to do so constitutes a lack of due diligence causing their motion to fail (Cote at paras 33 and 35; Laurent-Hippolyte v. Blasse, 2018 ONSC 940 at paras. 26-27).  In recent cases, the courts have consistently held that requiring plaintiffs injured in slip and falls and other accidents involving snow and ice to inquire into the possible existence of winter maintenance contractors does not constitute a “pro forma” letter as described in Madrid. Further, a plaintiff’s failure to make these inquiries has been consistently found to constitute a lack of reasonable diligence ultimately leading to the denial of leave to amend.

This reasoning is not uncommon, as the citations indicate, but I think it’s fundamentally flawed.  Essentially, the reasoning is this: a reasonable person would have asked a question the plaintiff did not, and therefore a reasonable person would have discovered the claim earlier than the plaintiff.

The problem is that it’s not the question which matters, but the answer—specifically, whether the answer would have provided the plaintiff with knowledge of the discovery matters.  Had the reasonable person asked the question on some earlier date would it have resulted in discovery of the claim? Without evidence of the date and content of the answer had the question been asked, the court can’t make the findings necessary to determine discovery, and whether asking the question would have resulted in discovery is purely speculative.  And so the court risks finding a proceeding statute-barred for want of due diligence per se, not because a reasonable person would have asked the question and, having done so, discovered the claim earlier than the plaintiff discovered it.

The court made this point explicitly in Ledoux v. Lee:

40.            Uber also argued that Mr. Ledoux’s lawyer should have served Co-operators with a formal notice of his claim against Mr. Lee after getting the police report. Mr. Giugaru contended that this is a standard practice because it allows a plaintiff to claim pre-judgement interest from the date of the notice.  Had Mr. Ledoux’s counsel put Co-Operators on formal notice of a potential claim, he argued, the insurer might have advised the plaintiff of the coverage issue and disclosed Mr. Lee’s activity as an Uber driver.

41.            This argument is speculative.  I could not conclude, on the evidence before me, that it is standard practice for plaintiff’s counsel in MVA claims to formally notify the defendant motorist’s insurer of a potential claim. Even if I had been able to, I could not infer that a formal notice letter to Co-Operators would have yielded information about its position on coverage.  Mr. Ledoux’s lawyers were in communication with Co-Operators from September 2017 forward, providing it with a copy of the police report and Mr. Ledoux’s hospital record.  There is no evidence that, in the course of this correspondence, the adjuster ever so much as hinted that it might deny coverage or disclosed that Mr. Lee was participating in the gig economy, even though it notified the insured of its denial of coverage on this basis two weeks after the accident.

The interesting complication is that when moving to add a party after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period, the plaintiff needs to show enough due diligence to found a prima facie discovery argument.  The courts consistently find that this can require sending letters of enquiry, a point the court made explicitly:

[30]              I also reject the Plaintiff’s argument that there is no guarantee that she would have received a response from the City had she made these inquires. The relevant issue is the absence of evidence demonstrating effort and diligence on the part of the Plaintiff, not speculation as to the likelihood of a response. As the courts have held in previous cases, had the Plaintiff asked and not received a response, the efforts would have been evidence of diligence.

I think the plaintiff’s argument was correct for the purposes of a s. 5 analysis: absent any evidence as to the response to the inquiry, whether it would have resulted in discovery is speculative. But in the context of a motion where the plaintiff had an obligation to show evidence of due diligence, the failure to make the inquiry was fatal.  From a limitations perspective, the plaintiff probably would have been better suing the City in a new action where its evidentiary argument might have prevailed.

The takeaway is twofold: first, personal injury lawyers should always send pro forma letters of this kind to avoid these arguments; and second, this is an area of limitations law that could use a little rationalising. It’s probably my least favourite corner of the limitations scheme, but plainly I’m due to give it more consideration.

 

Ontario: confusion in the Court of Appeal on the historical limitation of demand obligations

The Court of Appeal decision in Michel v. Spirit Financial Inc. includes the following paragraph that compels me to pedantry:

[14]      The trial judge made a finding of fact that all the advances made by Michel to Kramer and Spirit were loans. The loans were advanced from 2000 to 2009, during which time the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15 was largely replaced by the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B. On January 1, 2004 the basic limitation period for demand loans was changed from six years from the date of the loan to two years from the date of the demand: Hare v. Hare, 2006 CanLII 41650 (ON CA), 83 O.R. (3d) 766 (C.A.), at para. 11 and Limitations Act, 2002, at s. 5.

Here are the issues:

  1. The Limitations Act didn’t change the limitation of demand loans when it came into force on January 1, 2004. Section 5(3) wasn’t present in the initial version of the Limitations Act, which didn’t address the discovery of a claim arising from demand obligations at all.The Court cites Hare, but Hare actually holds that, under the version of the Limitations Act in force when it was decided, a demand obligation was actionable as of the funds being advanced and not the date of the demand.  This was manageable under the Former Act, which applied a six-year limitation period, but it’s problematic with a two-year limitation period.  This caused the Legislature to amend the Limitations Act in 2008 to add s. 5(3), which makes presumptive discovery of a claim arising from a demand loan the date of the demand for repayment.

    Frankly, it’s surprising that the Court would misstate the development of the law so materially.

  1. It’s misleading to say that the Limitations Act “largely” replaced the Former Act. The Limitations Act and the RPLA together entirely replaced the Former Act.  To be fair, the RPLA is Part I of the Former Act repackaged, and in that sense the Limitations Act only partially replaced the Former Act.  Nevertheless, this statement suggests that some part of the Former Act remains in force.  It doesn’t.

Ontario: the dangers of arguing a particular step would have caused discovery

I often see defendants argue that if a plaintiff had undertaken a certain step, discovery would have occurred on an earlier date.  Without evidence that the plaintiff taking this step on a specific date would have resulted in the plaintiff learning on another specific date the facts necessary for discovery, this argument is purely hypothetical and can’t succeed.  The court in Ledoux v. Lee makes the point:

40.              Uber also argued that Mr. Ledoux’s lawyer should have served Co-operators with a formal notice of his claim against Mr. Lee after getting the police report. Mr. Giugaru contended that this is a standard practice because it allows a plaintiff to claim pre-judgement interest from the date of the notice.  Had Mr. Ledoux’s counsel put Co-Operators on formal notice of a potential claim, he argued, the insurer might have advised the plaintiff of the coverage issue and disclosed Mr. Lee’s activity as an Uber driver.

41.              This argument is speculative.  I could not conclude, on the evidence before me, that it is standard practice for plaintiff’s counsel in MVA claims to formally notify the defendant motorist’s insurer of a potential claim. Even if I had been able to, I could not infer that a formal notice letter to Co-Operators would have yielded information about its position on coverage.  Mr. Ledoux’s lawyers were in communication with Co-Operators from September 2017 forward, providing it with a copy of the police report and Mr. Ledoux’s hospital record.  There is no evidence that, in the course of this correspondence, the adjuster ever so much as hinted that it might deny coverage or disclosed that Mr. Lee was participating in the gig economy, even though it notified the insured of its denial of coverage on this basis two weeks after the accident.

Ontario: notice to the crown doesn’t toll the limitation period

Francis v. Ontario is a remainder that giving notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (now replaced by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, which has similar notice requirements in s. 18) doesn’t toll the limitation period:

[273]    I agree with Ontario’s submission that that the limitation period in this proceeding was not tolled as soon as Mr. Francis filed the notice of his claim. It continued to run against claimants until the Statement of Claim was issued. Under s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, a claimant must serve notice of the claim at least 60 days before commencing a claim against the Crown (Ontario). However, the notice itself does not effect the limitation period, and there is nothing in the Act that suggests that the notice has this effect. Indeed, what is in the Act suggests the opposite, i.e., that the giving of the notice does not end the running of the limitation period.

[274]     In one circumstance, the delivery of the notice may extend the limitation period, but the notice does not toll the limitation period, which continues to run and to bar claims. An extension of the limitation period is provided for in s. 7(2) of Act which states:

Limitation period extended

(2) Where a notice of a claim is served under subsection (1) before the expiration of the limitation period applying to the commencement of an action for the claim and the sixty-day period referred to in subsection (1) expires after the expiration of the limitation period, the limitation period is extended to the end of seven days after the expiration of the sixty-day period.

[275]    Section 7(2) does not apply in the circumstances of the immediate case.

Ontario: the limitation of uninsured motorist proceedings

Sarokin v. Zhang has a comprehensive summary of the limitation of uninsured motorist proceedings. It’s a good resource if you practice in the area:

[28]              Section 265 (1) of the Insurance Act (Ontario) sets out the mandatory provisions for uninsured automobile coverage to be contained in all Ontario automobile insurance policies:

 265 (1) Every contract evidenced by a motor vehicle liability policy shall provide for payment of all sums that,

(a) a person insured under the contract is legally entitled to recover from the owner or driver of an uninsured automobile or unidentified automobile as damages for bodily injuries resulting from an accident involving an automobile;

(b) any person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or driver of an uninsured automobile or unidentified automobile as damages for bodily injury to or the death of a person insured under the contract resulting from an accident involving an automobile; and

(c) a person insured under the contract is legally entitled to recover from the identified owner or driver of an uninsured automobile as damages for accidental damage to the insured automobile or its contents, or to both the insured automobile and its contents, resulting from an accident involving an automobile,

subject to the terms, conditions, provisions, exclusions and limits as are prescribed by the regulations.

 [29]              Regulation 676 under the Insurance Act sets out the applicable terms, conditions, provisions, exclusions and limits to payments under an automobile insurance policy pursuant to s. 265(1) of the Insurance Act. Section 6 of Regulation 676 sets out the mandatory notice provisions for claims made under s. 265(1) of the Insurance Act:

 (1) A person entitled to make a claim in respect of the bodily injury or death of a person insured under the contract shall do so in accordance with this section.

(2) The claimant shall give the insurer written notice of the claim within thirty days after the accident or as soon as is practicable after that date.

(3) The claimant shall give the insurer, within ninety days after the accident or as soon as is practicable after that date, such proof as is reasonably possible in the circumstances of the accident, the resulting loss and the claim.

(4) The claimant shall provide the insurer upon request with a certificate of the medical or psychological advisor of the person insured under the contract stating the cause of the injury or death and, if applicable, the nature of the injury and the expected duration of any disability.

 [30]              The applicable limitation periods for claims under s. 265(1) are set out in section 8 of Regulation 676:

 (1) No person is entitled to bring an action to recover an amount provided for under the contract, as required by subsection 265 (1) of the Act, unless the requirements of this Schedule with respect to the claim have been complied with.

(2) An action or proceeding against an insurer in respect of loss or damage to the insured automobile or its contents shall be commenced within one year after the loss or damage occurs.

(3) An action or proceeding against an insurer in respect of bodily injury or death, or in respect of loss or damage to property other than the insured automobile or its contents, shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action arises.

 [31]              The leading case with respect the application of the Limitations Act to claims under OPCF 44R is Schmitz v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2014 ONCA 86. Following its decision in Markel Insurance Co. of Canada v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada, 2012 ONCA 218, the Court of Appeal held that the limitation period for claims under OPCF 44R starts to run on the day after a demand for indemnity is made:

“[20] ….Once a legally valid claim for indemnification under the OPCF 44R is asserted, the underinsured coverage insurer is under a legal obligation to respond to it. To paraphrase and adapt Sharpe J.A.’s observations, at para. 27 of Markel, the claimant for indemnity under the OPCF 44R “suffers a loss from the moment [the insurer] can be said to have failed to satisfy its legal obligation [under the OPCF 44R]”. Thus, the claimant suffers a loss “caused by” the underinsured [page700] coverage insurer’s omission in failing to satisfy the claim for indemnity the day after the demand for indemnification is made.” (Schmitz at paras. 20 and 26)

[32]              Unlike the claim of an injured party against a tortfeasor, the cause of action for an insured’s claim against his or her own insurer for the insurer’s failure to indemnify pursuant to the unidentified motorist endorsement is for breach of contract which does not arise until the insurer breaches its insurance contract to indemnify by failing or refusing to pay the insured’s claim (Jones v. Doe et al, 2018 ONSC 4780 at paras. 25-26; Chahine v. Grybas, 2014 ONSC 4698 at paras. 34-35; Tucker v. Unknown Persons, 2015 NLCA 21 at paras. 38-39).

[33]              In Schmitz, the Court of Appeal rejected the insurer’s submission that the definition of discoverability in s. 17 of OPCF 44R applies, holding that both ss. 4-5 of the Limitations Act apply to determine the commencement of the limitation period for an OPCF 44R claim (Schmitz at para. 16). The Court of Appeal also held that insurers are not prejudiced as they could require that insureds provide timely notice pursuant to other provisions in OPCF 44R and other insurance contracts (Schmitz at para. 22). The Court of Appeal also rejected the insurer’s arguments that the limitation period should begin to run on the day a claimant accumulates a body of evidence that would permit it a reasonable chance of persuading a Judge that his or her claims will exceed the limits of their policy and that starting the limitation period when a demand for indemnification is made does not limit when the demand could or should be made such that an insured does not need to wait until the outcome of the trial is known (Schmitz at paras. 23-24).

[34]              Markel arose from a loss transfer claim made by one insurer against another seeking indemnification for statutory accident benefits paid to an insured. The Court of Appeal held that the earliest the limitation period can start to run is the date the first party insurer demands indemnification from the second party insurer (Markel at para. 36). However, the Court also held that a claim cannot be delayed for tactical or other reasons and must be commenced when it is “legally appropriate”:

“[34] This brings me to the question of when it would be “appropriate” to bring a proceeding within the meaning of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act. Here as well, I fully accept that parties should be discouraged from rushing to litigation or arbitration and encouraged to discuss and negotiate claims. In my view, when s. 5(1)(a)(iv) states that a claim is “discovered” only when “having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it”, the word “appropriate” must mean legally appropriate. To give “appropriate” an evaluative gloss, allowing a party to delay the commencement of proceedings for some tactical or other reason beyond two years from the date the claim is fully ripened and requiring the court to assess to tone and tenor of communications in search of a clear denial would, in my opinion, inject an unacceptable element of uncertainty into the law of limitation of actions.” (Markel at para. 34)

[35]              These issues were considered more recently by Justice LeMay in Howell v. Jatheeskumar, 2016 ONSC 1381, a case decided in the context of an OPCF 44R claim similar to the present case. In Howell, plaintiff’s counsel sent a third party notice letter to the defendant’s presumptive insurer 7.5 months after the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel did not follow up with the presumptive insurer for 2 years and 4 months. At that time, the presumptive insurer advised that it was not the defendant’s insurer. Five months later, the plaintiff brought a motion to add the plaintiff’s own automobile insurer, TD.

[36]              LeMay J. held that that there were 3 possible outcomes. The court could determine that: i.) there was insufficient due diligence on the part of the Plaintiff and no other reason to extend the time limits thereby defeating any claim the plaintiff may have to extend the time limits as a result of the principles of discoverability; ii.) there was a triable issue about the issues of discovery and whether the claim was timely as a result of the application of the discoverability principles which could include whether there was any other statute under which the limitations period could be extended; or iii.) on the materials filed there was clearly an issue of discoverability that made the claim timely (Howell at para. 35).

 [37]              LeMay J. concluded that it was clear from Schmitz and Markel that there were good arguments available to the plaintiff to defeat any limitations defence advanced by TD:

37  In this case, the Plaintiff has a reasonable argument that the claim against TD General Insurance was not discoverable until August of 2015. However, there may be issues relating to the Plaintiff’s due diligence that TD General Insurance may wish to raise. As a result, I am prepared to find that this claim falls at least into the second category, that there was a triable issue about discovery. As a result, the claim should be amended.

38  The Plaintiff is not required to plead any discoverability issues at this stage (see Collins v. Cortez, supra at paragraph 15). Instead, if TD General Insurance raises a Limitations Act issue in its defence, then the Plaintiff will be required to plead the relevant facts on discoverability in reply to TD’s defence. (Howell at paras. 37-38)

Ontario: failing the litigation finger test

Reimer v. Toronto (City) is an example of failing to make out the litigation finger test.  The plaintiff in a slip and fall action named “John Doe Maintenance Company” as a defendant and sought leave to correct it to the name of the actual maintenance company.  However, she didn’t plead the particulars of the maintenance company’s alleged negligence with sufficient detail so that the company would know on reading the pleading that it was the intended defendant.  It’s a warning not to presume that the court will grant misnomer relief in regards of a John Doe in all circumstances.  These are the material paragraphs:

[14]           I accept that this is a situation where the plaintiff may be able to rely on the doctrine of misnomer. The plaintiff has named a defendant as John Doe Maintenance Company and it is permissible, if properly pleaded, for that one defendant named by pseudonym to stand in place of more than one person.

[15]           In my view, however, the key principle to be considered on this motion is described by Justice MacLeod in Loy-English as follows:

To be a misnomer, the plaintiff must clearly have intended to sue the proposed defendant. The pleading must be drafted with sufficient particularity that an objective and generous reading of the pleading would demonstrate that the “litigation finger” is pointing at the proposed defendant. To put this another way, the pleading must be sufficiently clear that a properly informed defendant reading the allegation would be able to recognize that he or she was the target of the allegation. The allegation must be clear and definite on its face and not held together through a series of assumptions about what the person reading the statement of claim might know.

[16]           Certainly, the plaintiff has identified the correct date and location of the accident at the beginning of her statement of claim. The proposed defendants were responsible for general sidewalk maintenance and sidewalk snow removal at that location on that date. At first glance, this appears to point the litigation finger at the proposed defendants.

[17]           However, the John Doe Maintenance Company defendant is not separately described, specified or identified in the initial pleading.[1] The plaintiff’s allegations of negligence are lumped together as applicable to all of the named defendants. The claim has not been drafted to particularize the specific rolls played by any of the unidentified persons. See Loy-English at paragraph 21b. This lack of particularity militates against a finding of misnomer.

[18]           The conclusion that the plaintiff’s claims are partly directed at Maple and Royal becomes even less obvious as the circumstances of the plaintiff’s accident are further particularized in the statement of claim. The location of the plaintiff’s accident is broadly defined as “at or near the intersection of Kennedy Road and Sheppard Avenue East”. The further particulars in the statement of claim state that the plaintiff fell twice. First, on the “sidewalk” when she stepped off the bus and then a second time when she “violently” fell on the “roadway” causing her to sustain personal injuries. It is not at all clear from the language of the pleading that the plaintiff was injured when she first fell on the sidewalk when exiting the bus. The roadway fall clearly suggests resulting injuries, but the roadway was the responsibility of Crupi and not the proposed defendants. The fact that this distinction is made in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, but not elsewhere, leads to the conclusion, from reading the statement of claim, that the plaintiff’s injuries arose from the fall on the roadway and not the sidewalk.

[19]           In my view, the proposed defendants, when reading the statement of claim as a whole, would more likely conclude that the identity of the John Doe Maintenance Company defendant was Crupi alone and did not also include Maple and Royal. A fair reading of the statement of claim would not lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff must have meant Maple and Royal.

[20]           I have therefore concluded that the plaintiff has not satisfied her onus to show that Maple and Royal should be substituted for the defendant John Doe Maintenance Company on the basis of misnomer.

Ontario: Court of Appeal narrows the s. 5(1)(a)(iv) “alternative process” principle

The Court of Appeal decision in Beniuk v. Leamington (Municipality) is an important addition to s. 5(1)(a)(iv) appropriateness jurisprudence.

It has become popular to argue that an alternative dispute resolution process with a clear and identifiable conclusion delays the appropriateness of a civil proceeding as a remedy, and therefore discovery of a claim.  Beniuk holds that this isn’t the law: whether an alternative process impacts on appropriateness is a question of fact that the plaintiff must prove.

The appellant in Beniuk argued that the Court of Appeal’s decision in 407 ETR stands for the principle that when there is an alternative dispute resolution process, an action becomes an appropriate remedy only when the alternative process concludes.  It followed that that the limitation period or the appellant’s action didn’t not run until the OMB confirmed that it did not have jurisdiction over its cause of action: if the OMB assumed jurisdiction, there would have been no need for the action; therefore, the OMB hearing was an alternative process that until concluded rendered an action inappropriate.

Nope, held the court.

A limitation period doesn’t run whenever there is an ongoing alternative process.  Whether an alternative process delays the running of time turns on the particular facts of each case.  Evidence is necessary to explain the basis for pursuing the alternative process rather than commencing a proceeding.

[60]      407 ETR does not stand for a general principle that a limitation period will not begin to run whenever an alternative process that might resolve the matter has not yet run its course. It is a matter of evidence. Indeed, Laskin J.A. noted, at para. 34, that when an action is “appropriate” will depend on the specific factual or statutory setting of each individual case, and that case law applying s. 5(1)(a)(iv) is of limited assistance because each case will turn on its own facts. In 407 ETR, the court considered the evidence on the motion about the statutory scheme and the effectiveness of the administrative process before deciding that it would be reasonable for such a process to run its course before a civil proceeding was appropriate.

[61]      Recently, several cases considering the application of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) have come before this court. The court has emphasized, echoing the words of Laskin J.A. in 407 ETR, that when a proceeding is appropriate will turn on the facts of each case: see, for example, Nelson v. Lavoie, 2019 ONCA 431, 47 C.C.P.B. (2d) 1, at para. 25, and Ridel v. Goldberg, 2019 ONCA 636, 436 D.L.R. (4th) 453, at para. 71.

[62]      This case did not involve an alternative process available under a statutory scheme. It did, however, involve an alternative process that the appellants were pursuing, as in 407 ETR, against the same party.

[63]      The fact that a plaintiff chooses to pursue an alternative process does not in itself suspend the running of the limitation period under s. 5(1)(a)(iv). Whether an alternative process will have this effect will depend on the particular factual circumstances and the evidence before the court in determining the limitations issue. In this case, there was no evidence to explain why the appellants chose to pursue the OMB route rather than commencing both an OMB proceeding and a civil action.

[74]      As I have already observed, 407 ETR does not stand for the general principle that it will always be appropriate to wait until another process has run its course before commencing a civil action in respect of a claim which has otherwise been “discovered” under s. 5(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii). It is incumbent on a party asserting that it was reasonable to pursue a claim in another forum to explain why this approach was reasonable. That is what occurred, and was ultimately successful, in the 407 ETR case.

[75]      While one of the principles recognized in connection with s. 5(1)(a)(iv) is the deterrence of unnecessary litigation, a plaintiff is not entitled in all cases to pursue one route, and to expect the limitation period to be tolled in respect of any other claim it may have in respect of its loss or damage. Said another way, s. 5(1)(a)(iv) does not permit a party to engage in litigation in stages for the same wrong. An example is Lilydale Cooperative Limited v. Meyn Canada Inc., 2019 ONCA 761, 439 D.L.R. (4th) 385, where this court considered the submission that a limitation period in respect of a third party claim in Ontario was suspended while the defendant was seeking to establish that Alberta was the correct forum for the litigation. Feldman J.A. rejected the argument that it was not legally appropriate to commence a legal proceeding while another resolution process that might resolve the matter was ongoing. She held that such an interpretation of “appropriate” was inconsistent with the purpose of the Limitations Act and could extend the limitation period well beyond the two-year threshold in an uncertain and unpredictable manner. There were also no significant savings to be achieved by not commencing the third party claim until the forum challenge was complete.

Here, the OMB wasn’t an alternative process, but an alternative forum, and the availability of multiple forums doesn’t impact on discovery because the law deems a party to know the applicable legal principles (that is, which forum is correct):
[70]      While I can appreciate why the appellants may have thought they had a claim for injurious affection, it has always been a principle of limitations law that a plaintiff knows, or could by the exercise of reasonable diligence, determine what legal principles apply. See, for example, Boyce v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 ONSC 53, aff’d: 2012 ONCA 230, leave to appeal refused: [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 265, where Low J. stated, at para. 23:
Section 5(1)(a)(iv) does not import an idiosyncratic limitation period calibrated by the claimant’s familiarity with or ignorance of the law. The test is an objective one. While it is possible to envisage that a new kind of right might arise that has not been hitherto protected, thus making it arguable that a civil proceeding might not be seen objectively as an appropriate means to seek to remedy, a battery causing personal injury is a classic example of the kind of wrong that is appropriate for redress by court action. A citizen is presumed to know the law of the land. [Emphasis added.]

This strikes me as a material and reasonable narrowing of the s. 5(1)(a)(iv) “alternative dispute resolution process” principle.  Whether an alternative process impacts on discovery is a question of fact, and the plaintiff will need to establish that it was reasonable in the circumstances to allow the process to complete before commencing a proceeding.  This should discourage some of the more creative alternative process arguments, of which I see many.

Also noteworthy is the confirmation that an action in nuisance or negligence for damages relating to real property is “an action to recover land” for the purpose of RPLA and subject to its ten-year limitation period:

[42]      Subsection 2(1)(a) of the Limitations Act provides that the Limitations Act does not apply to proceedings to which the RPLA applies. Section 4 of the RPLA provides for a ten-year limitation period for an action to recover land:

 No person shall make an entry or distress, or bring an action to recover any land or rent, but within ten years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, first accrued to some person through whom the person making or bringing it claims, or if the right did not accrue to any person through whom that person claims, then within ten years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or distress, or to bring such action, first accrued to the person making or bringing it.

[43]      When the elements that do not apply to this case are removed, s. 4 provides that “no person shall bring an action to recover any land, but within ten years after the time at which the right to bring any such action first accrued to the person bringing it.” The issue here is whether the appellants’ claim is an “action to recover land” within the meaning of the RPLA.

 [44]      The appellants point to the definition of “land” in s. 1 of the RPLA:
 “land” includes messuages and all other hereditaments, whether corporeal or incorporeal, chattels and other personal property transmissible to heirs, money to be laid out in the purchase of land, and any share of the same hereditaments and properties or any of them, any estate of inheritance, or estate for any life or lives, or other estate transmissible to heirs, any possibility, right or title of entry or action, and any other interest capable of being inherited, whether the same estates, possibilities, rights, titles and interest or any of them, are in possession, reversion, remainder or contingency; [Emphasis added.]

[45]      They rely on the term “messuages”, which refers to a dwelling house, its outbuildings, the area immediately surrounding the dwelling, and the adjacent land appropriate to its use: McConnell v. Huxtable, 2014 ONCA 86, 118 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 14. The appellants also parse out and rely on the phrase “any…right…of…action”. Putting these pieces together, the appellants submit that an “action to recover land” includes an action to recover rights that run with the land, and that a cause of action for nuisance is tied to and arises out of the right to use and enjoy land without substantial interference. Accordingly, the appellants submit that a cause of action for nuisance is an incorporeal or intangible right that runs with the property and is captured by the definition of “land” in the RPLA. They point to a passage in Equitable Trust Co. v. 2062277 Ontario Inc., 2012 ONCA 235, 109 O.R. (3d) 561, where Perell J. (sitting on this court ad hoc) stated that the RPLA is intended to cover actions “affecting” land: Equitable Trust, at para. 28.

 [46]      I do not accept the appellants’ submission. There is no support in the jurisprudence that an action in nuisance or negligence for damages relating to real property is “an action to recover land” for the purposes of the RPLA. That land or real property is involved in an action does not mean that the RPLA applies: Harvey v. Talon International Inc., 2017 ONCA 267, 137 O.R. (3d) 184, at paras. 51-52. Typically, actions to recover land seek to assert property rights. And Perell J.’s remark from Equitable Trust that the RPLA covers actions “affecting” land has been commented on specifically by this court, and later by Perell J. himself, as a statement that should be interpreted narrowly and not out of the context of that case.

Lastly, I note that the court stated the standard of review with respect to each limitations issue.  For whatever reason, the court frequently omits an explicit standard of review analysis when considering limitations issues.  This approach is helpful and I hope to see more of it.

[41]      The motion judge’s conclusion that s. 4 of the RPLA does not apply to the appellants’ civil action is reviewable on a standard of correctness: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 8. For the reasons that follow, I agree with the motion judge’s conclusion on this issue.

[53]      The question of whether a limitation period expired prior to the issuance of a statement of claim is a question of mixed fact and law and subject to review on the standard of palpable and overriding error: Longo v. MacLaren Art Centre Inc., 2014 ONCA 526, 323 O.A.C. 246, at para. 38. However, where there is an extricable error of principle, the standard of review is correctness: Housen, at paras. 8 and 36.

[79]      The appellants contend that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error when he concluded that their claim was statute-barred even on the basis of what he described as a “rolling limitation period”. A “palpable and overriding error” is “an obvious error that is sufficiently significant to vitiate the challenged finding of fact”: Longo, at para. 39.