Ontario

Ontario: Court of Appeal on the impact of a forum dispute on a third party claim

Will a third party claim become an appropriate remedy within the meaning of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) only once the court has determined the forum for the main action?  No, held the Court of Appeal in Lilydale Cooperative Limited v. Meyn Canada Inc.  The issues arising from a contested forum, in particular the risk of attornment, are tactical and do not impact on when the claimant discovers the claim.  The court’s analysis is well-reasoned:

[49]      Meyn’s position is that it was not legally appropriate under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act to bring the third party proceedings until the forum issue was finally decided in February 2008 and that the two years ran from that time. Its submission is based on what occurred in the main action where Lilydale took the position by letter dated March 10, 2006 that it would only be proceeding in one jurisdiction, Alberta or Ontario. Meyn did not defend or take any steps in the Ontario action. In its submissions on this appeal, Meyn explained that the reason for this was because it believed that doing so had the potential to undermine its position in support of the stay of the Ontario action.

 [50]      Meyn’s argument regarding discoverability has two prongs. First, it could not deliver any third party claim in the Ontario action to ensure that it did not attorn and thereby jeopardize the forum argument. Second, if it had been successful in establishing that Alberta was the correct forum, then the Ontario action would have been discontinued and there would have been no need for any third party proceedings. Therefore, the principle applies from 407 ETR Concession Co. v. Day, 2016 ONCA 709, 133 O.R. (3d) 762, and Presidential MSH Corp. v. Marr, Foster & Co. LLP, 2017 ONCA 325, 135 O.R. (3d) 321, that it would not be legally appropriate to commence a legal proceeding while another resolution process that may resolve the matter is ongoing.

[55]      While a finding that serving a third party claim amounted to attornment could be prejudicial, or even fatal to a party’s forum challenge, the strategic decision of how to deal with this risk of prejudice is the type of tactical consideration that does not affect the “legally appropriate” calculus in s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act. The issue of whether serving a third party claim solely to protect a limitation period will amount to voluntary attornment is for the forum judge to decide. It does not affect the discoverability of the third party claim and therefore the commencement of the limitation period.

 [56]      I also note that a party such as Meyn, facing the expiry of a limitation period, had a number of procedural avenues to take to avoid that consequence rather than allow a limitation period to expire or be found to have expired on the application of discoverability principles.
 [57]      First, Meyn could have alerted Weishaupt that the third party claim was coming and sought its agreement under s. 22(3) of the Limitations Act to a stand-still pending the determination of the forum issue. I can see no reason for the third party not to agree. However, if there were one, then judicial authorization on the attornment issue could be sought. That is what occurred in Joyce v. MtGox Inc., 2016 ONSC 581, where Perell J., on a case management conference in advance of the expiry of the limitation period, involving a party in Meyn’s position, ruled that issuing the third party claim would not amount to attornment.
 [58]      Second, Meyn could have served the third party claim, with an express reservation of its rights, and then argued at its forum motion that it did so only to preserve the limitation period and therefore has not attorned to Ontario’s jurisdiction. Meyn brought a forum non conveniens motion. It was understood by all the existing parties that Meyn was not acknowledging the convenience of Ontario as the forum for the action by bringing the motion. While that motion was outstanding, it would be anomalous indeed if Meyn’s service of a third party claim to preserve a limitation period in Ontario would be found to amount to such an acknowledgement.
 [59]      To conclude, while risk of attornment was a potentially legitimate concern for Meyn, that concern related to its position on the forum issue and did not affect the discoverability of its third party claim and the need to take the steps necessary to preserve the claim within the limitation period.

The appellant also argued that the forum dispute had the potential to resolve the third party claim, and was therefore an alternative resolution process that could render the third party proceeding inappropriate until its conclusion.  The court rejected this submission.  The forum dispute couldn’t resolve the third party claim, it would only move it to another jurisdiction.

[63]      The forum challenge is conceptually similar to settlement discussions, which may resolve the entire claim so that no court proceeding need be commenced, but nonetheless do not postpone the running of the limitation period: see Presley v. Van Dusen, 2019 ONCA 66, 432 D.L.R. (4th) 712, at para. 25; and Markel at para. 34.

[64]      As in Ridel, Tapak v. Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London, 2018 ONCA 168, 76 C.C.L.I. (5th) 197, leave to appeal refused, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 157, and Gravelle, in this case, there was no alternative resolution process to which Weishaupt was a party that could have resolved the issue between it and Meyn. Rather, Meyn was attempting to have the whole Ontario action dismissed, obviating the need for the third party claim.

[65]      To allow parties to wait, at their discretion, for other court or arbitral proceedings to conclude, where the result could obviate the need to bring a claim that they know exists, is inconsistent with the purpose of the Limitations Act for two reasons. First, this approach could extend the limitation period well beyond the two year original threshold in an uncertain and unpredictable manner. Second, there were no significant savings to be achieved by not commencing the third party claim until the forum challenge was complete. Procedurally, a stand-still or tolling agreement could be sought until the forum issue had been finalized by the court so that the third party would not be required to plead in response. However, it would be on notice that if the Ontario action proceeds, it is a named party, required to preserve its documents, and respond to the action as advised.
[66]      In my view, these factors drive the conclusion that the day Meyn was served with the statement of claim by Lilydale, it knew that a third party claim against Weishaupt was the appropriate means to seek a remedy from Weishaupt. It was therefore not “legally appropriate” for Meyn to wait until the forum issue had been decided before the commencing third party claim.

Ontario: Court of Appeal reviews appropriateness principles

The Court of Appeal decision Sosnowksi v. MacEwan Petroleum provides a useful summary of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) jurisprudence:

[15]      This court’s jurisprudence has developed certain principles for the interpretation and application of s. 5(1)(a)(iv).

[16]      First, the determination of whether a proceeding is an appropriate means to seek to remedy an injury, loss, or damage depends upon the specific factual and/or statutory setting of each case: Nasr Hospitality Services Inc. v. Intact Insurance, 2018 ONCA 725, 142 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 46.

 [17]      Second, this court has observed that two circumstances most often delay the date on which a claim is discovered under this subsection. The first is when the plaintiff relied on the defendant’s superior knowledge and expertise, especially where the defendant took steps to ameliorate the loss. The other situation is where an alternative dispute resolution process offers an adequate remedy, and it has not been completed: Nasr, at para. 50.
 [18]      Third, Sharpe J.A. in Markel Insurance Company of Canada v. ING Insurance Company of Canada, 2012 ONCA 218, 109 O.R. (3d) 652, at para. 34, provided the following guidance concerning the meaning of the term “appropriate”:
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 a 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 the 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. [Emphasis in original.]

[19]      In other words, appropriate means whether it is legally appropriate to bring an action. Appropriate does not include an evaluation of whether a civil proceeding will succeed.

It’s also another addition to the jurisprudence considering the impact of a criminal proceeding on the timeliness of a civil proceeding. The outcome of a criminal proceeding may assist in assessing the merits of a civil proceeding, but that’s not a material consideration in the limitations analysis:

[28]      The appellant’s principal submission is that he should have been permitted to wait until the criminal proceedings concluded so that he could evaluate his chances of success in litigation. He argues that litigation is an expensive and risky proposition, and he should not have been forced to commence a civil proceeding until he knew that he had a chance of success. This argument, of course, is precisely what this court in Markel said a plaintiff is not permitted to do.

 [29]      If such an evaluative analysis could effectively stop the running of the limitation period, questions will necessarily follow regarding the nature of that analysis and the factors that could be considered. For example, is it open to a plaintiff to argue that he or she can await the outcome of a related discipline process in a professional negligence claim? May a potential plaintiff commence a claim many years after the events if there is a change in the law that increases his or her chances of success? If a critical witness goes missing and is later discovered, is it open to the plaintiff to assert that he or she did not know whether it was appropriate to bring an action until the witness was found?

 

Ontario: Court of Appeal on s. 43(1) of the RPLA

In Hilson v. 1336365 Alberta Ltd., the Court of Appeal confirmed that the ten-year limitation period in s. 43(1) of the RPLA applies to a stand-alone mortgage guarantee.

The respondents argued that s. 43(1) should be read narrowly to deal only with the circumstances that existed when its predecessor provision was enacted, and that “instrument” as used in the provision should have the same definition prescribed in the Registry Act.  The court rejected both arguments in comprehensive reasons.  I think it’s a good decision.

Ontario: Court of Appeal on the limitation of continuing oppressive conduct

The Court of Appeal decision in Zhao v. Li considers the limitation of continuing oppressive conduct.  It holds sensibly that discrete oppressive acts give rise to discrete claims (subject to discrete limitation periods):

[28]      Maurice stands for the proposition that where what is complained of is a series of singular discrete acts of oppression over a period of time, claims arising from the acts committed or discoverable within two years of the action are not statute barred, even if the series of acts commenced, and claims for earlier oppressive acts in the series were discoverable, more than two years prior to the commencement of the action. A later oppressive act, even if based on or in furtherance of earlier oppressive acts, gives rise to a new cause of action because it is new oppressive conduct: at paras. 3 and 50-54.

 [29]      Although not expressly stated in Maurice, it follows that claims arising from singular discrete acts of oppression (in a series of such acts) that are discoverable more than two years before an action are statute barred. As a result, a series of singular discrete acts of oppression that stretches over a period of time may result in some claims for oppression arising from earlier acts in the series being statute barred while claims arising from later acts in the series are not.
            (ii)        Is this a case alleging singular discrete oppressive acts?

[30]      In my view, the approach in Maurice applies because, as was the case there, what is alleged here are singular discrete oppressive acts, rather than “ongoing oppression”. I reach that conclusion for the following reasons.

[31]      A failure to distribute profits is the alleged act that underpins the profits distribution claim. It is said to have occurred beginning in June 2010. A different act, an unauthorized transfer or sale of the business without at the time of sale accounting for the proceeds, is the alleged act that underpins the sale claim. That act is said to have occurred sometime before September 3, 2011. A still different act, the unauthorized dissolution of the Corporation, is the alleged act that underpins the corporate dissolution claim. It occurred in October 2011.
[32]      These are each singular discrete oppressive acts, because they are different acts occurring at different times and because none of them is dependent upon either of the others having happened for oppression to be said to have occurred. If the respondent had failed to distribute profits but neither transferred the business nor dissolved the Corporation, the appellant would, upon discovery, have had an oppression claim for failure to distribute profits. Similarly, if the respondent had only sold the business and kept sale proceeds, or if he had only dissolved the Corporation, the appellant would still have an oppression claim for these singular discrete acts, even if none of the others occurred. As Maurice points out, conduct may consist of singular discrete acts of oppression even where  the later oppressive conduct was based on or in furtherance of the earlier oppressive conduct: at paras. 3 and 48-54.

[36]     […] The limitation period is not extended for acts of oppression that are actionable in themselves simply because a later singular discrete act of oppression occurs. As Maurice provides: “Courts must be careful not to convert singular oppressive acts into ongoing oppression claims in an effort to extend limitation periods. To do so would create a special rule for oppression remedy claims”: at para. 49.

[37]      Nor is the limitation period extended because a complainant hopes that the oppression will be remedied: Maurice, at paras. 46-49.

There is perhaps an easier of way of approaching the issue.   If there is a discrete cause of action, there is a discrete claim.  If oppressive conduct gives rise to multiple causes of action, there are also multiple claims; this is regardless of the period over which the conduct occurs.  The basic limitation period will apply to each claim independent of the others.  This analysis applies equally to any misconduct that is continuing.

Ontario: special circumstances apply to construction lien actions

In Pryers Construction Ltd. v. MVMB Holdings Inc., the Divisional Court holds that the special circumstances doctrine is not available to a plaintiff in an action to enforce a construction lien.

[14]           In the present case, Riverside was an “owner” within the meaning of s. 1 of the CLA. As a result, Pryers was entitled to a lien on Riverside’s interest in the premises. As that interest was leasehold, Pryers’ ultimate remedy under the Act would have been a sale of the remaining term of the lease, if any. However, Pryers failed to preserve its lien against Riverside’s interest, and as a result, it expired in July 2016.

 [15]           The trial judge held, and Pryers argues, that the “special circumstances” doctrine was available, that such circumstances existed, and that as a result, Pryers was entitled to enforce its lien against Riverside as an “owner” of the property. This was an error of law.
 [16]           Where the “special circumstances” doctrine is available, the court has discretion to add new parties or new causes of action, following the expiry of a limitation period. With respect to actions governed by the LA2002, this doctrine was abolished by s. 21 of that statute: Joseph v. Paramount Canada’s Wonderland (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 301 (C.A.), at paras. 16 and 25. However, with respect to actions where the applicable limitation period is prescribed by a statute other than the LA2002, the “special circumstances” doctrine may remain available: Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services v. Langston (2009), 2009 ONCA 196 (CanLII), 94 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.), at para. 51.
 [17]           Relying upon Bikur Cholim, Pryers argues that the “special circumstances” doctrine is available to a plaintiff in a construction lien action, and that the trial judge was therefore correct in allowing Riverside to be added as a party defendant, for the purpose of enforcing a lien against it as an “owner”, notwithstanding that the lien was neither preserved nor perfected. I disagree for the following reasons.
 [18]           It does not follow from the decision in Bikur Cholim that all limitation or other time periods, contained in statutes other than the LA2002, may be extended based upon the “special circumstances” doctrine. In that case, the court referred to its decision in Swain Estate v. Lake of the Woods District Hospital (1992), 1992 CanLII 7601 (ON CA), 9 O.R. (3d) 74 (C.A.) where the doctrine was held to apply to an action governed by s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23, and went on to say that the doctrine survived in relation to such actions, despite the fact that it had been abolished for cases governed by the LA2002. However, the doctrine has never been held to apply in an action to enforce a construction lien.
 [19]           In Delview Construction Ltd. v. Meringolo (2004), 2004 CanLII 11188 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), at para. 11, the court said the following:
 [T]he courts have noted that unlike limitation periods where there is a discretion to extend under the Basarsky v. Quinlan, 1971 CanLII 5 (SCC), [1972] S.C.R. 380 line of cases, the time limits set out in the CLA are prescribed by statute and “[leave] no room for judicial discretion”.

Basarsky is one of the sources of the “special circumstances” doctrine.

[20]           In K.H. Custom Homes Ltd. v. Smiley, 2015 ONSC 6037 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 4f, this court said the following about the statutory deadlines in the CLA:

 These requirements are statutory. They are mandatory. The court has no discretion to relieve from them. The language of the CLA is clear on this point, as is consistent appellate authority.

This conclusion is consistent with the scheme of the CLA. The first two requirements [time limits for preservation and perfection of liens] are essential to the timely flow of funds on construction sites: persons advancing money to pay for construction may rely upon the state of title before making an advance. This reliance would be compromised if late liens could be placed on title as a result of the court’s exercise of discretion after-the-fact. [Footnotes omitted.]

[21]           The CLA does not contain a limitation period applicable to claims for breach of contract joined with actions to enforce claims for lien, and there is no conflict between the provisions of the CLA and the LA2002 in relation to such claims. Accordingly, the two-year limitation period under the LA2002 applies to contractual claims joined with lien claims: see LA2002, s. 19. In the present case, that limitation period had expired in March of 2018, approximately eight months before the motion to add Riverside was made.

Ontario: adding a plaintiff to a proceeding after the limitation period’s presumptive expiry

 

The Superior Court decision in Scalabrini v. Khan holds that the test for adding a plaintiff to a proceeding after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period is the same as adding a defendant:

[8]               The respondents argued that the test in Morrison is not applicable to a case such as this one where it is a plaintiff rather than defendant for whom leave is sought to be added. I see no basis for applying a different limitations test for leave to add a plaintiff than for leave to add a defendant. However, I do see a difference in the required findings and proof that would be needed to support a decision to deny leave to add a plaintiff (or defendant) on limitation grounds than would be needed to grant leave in the face of a limitations argument. If the master in this case had decided that Cinzia’s claims were statute barred and could not proceed, the Court of Appeal’s directive in Morrison that there be a finding that her claims had been discovered more than two years before the motion was brought makes sense because that decision would put an end to her claims.

Ontario: some pedantry in response to the Court of Appeal decision in Rumsam

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Rumsam v. Pakes overturned the motion judge’s order granting the plaintiff leave to add a doctor as a defendant to the proceeding.  The doctor had opposed the motion on the basis of an expired limitation period.  The motion judge found the proceeding timely.

The Court’s conclusion seems right to me, but it contains some statements of law that are problematic and require comment.

First, there is this description of s. 5(1)(b):

[30]      As of August 29, 2013, Ms. Rumsam was obliged to exercise reasonable diligence to secure the name of the second doctor to satisfy the requirement in s. 5(b) [sic] of the Limitations Act that a “cause of action arises for the 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” (emphasis added): Lawless, at para. 22.

This is not an accurate description of s. 5(1)(b).  That section provides that discovery occurs “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)”.

What paragraph 30 describes is common law discovery.  Discovery as codified in s. 5(1)(b) differs from common law discovery in two material ways.  First, the knowledge required by s. 5(1)(b) isn’t the material facts of a cause of action, but the four discovery matters in s. 5(1)(a); while these may accord generally with some causes of action, they don’t accord with many others (like breach of contract, which doesn’t have “injury, loss or damage” as a material fact.  Second, the knowledge is modified-objective, not purely objective; it’s the knowledge of a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the plaintiff.

It’s unfortunate that the Court of Appeal continues to treat common law discovery as the same as statutory discovery.  Relatively recent Court of Appeal jurisprudence distinguishing the “claim” form the “cause of action” has been promising (see Apotex and Gillham Bay), but apparently without the impact one might have hoped for.

Then there is this summary of conclusions:

[33] In conclusion:

1. A claim must be brought within two years of a claim being “discovered”.

2. A claim is discovered when the claimant first knew the injury occurred, that it was caused by an act or omission, that the act or omission was caused by the person against whom the claim is made, and that there was loss.

3. The injury was sustained on July 11, 2007, so normally the limitation period would have expired on July 11, 2009.

4. Given that Ms. Rumsam did not turn 18 until June 4, 2010, the presumptive limitation period did not begin to run until that date.

5. The limitation period would have expired on June 4, 2012, but for the discoverability principle.

6. By August 29, 2013 at the latest, Ms. Rumsam knew all of the material facts except the name of the “second clinic physician” in question.

7. By August 29, 2013 at the latest, she was required to exercise reasonable diligence to get the name within the two-year period as she knew she likely had a claim against this person for her injuries, and August 29, 2013 was “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” as set out in s. 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act.

8. The onus to prove reasonable diligence is on Ms. Rumsam.

9. She failed to exercise reasonable diligence as no steps were taken for at least a year.

10. As such, as the court held in Safai, there is no basis to extend the limitation period for more than two years as, from August 29, 2013, Ms. Rumsam knew of the likely claims and was in a position to ascertain the name by reasonable diligence.

Let’s go through the issues.

  1. A claim must be brought before the expiry of the limitation period, not within two years of discovery. Discovery causes the limitation period to commence, but it’s not determinative of its expiry.  There are multiple circumstances in which the limitation period will stop running—for a example a tolling agreement—so that it will expire more than two years from its commencement.
  2. Discovery does not require knowledge that an injury has occurred and that there was a loss, because for limitations purposes in injury and loss are effectively the same thing. There Limitations Act always refers to “injury, loss or damage”; “injury” never has a separate function from “loss” (which prompts the question why the act uses this language–I suspect it was intended by the drafters to signal that the act applies to all causes of action regardless of whether they require damage to be actionable).  In any event, all that discovery requires with respect to damage is knowledge that “injury, loss or damage” has occurred, so knowledge of injury or loss alone will suffice.
  3. There is no presumptive limitation period. There is basic limitation period in s. 4 that commences presumptively on the date of the act or omission that gives rise to the claim pursuant to s. 5(2). This is because of the “discoverability principle”, not despite it.  Section 5(2) creates a presumption that discovery occurs on the date of the act or omission, which the plaintiff can rebut.  The s. 5 discovery provisions always determine the commencement of the basic limitation period.

 

Ontario: make coverage denials clear and unambiguous

Clarke v. Sunlife is a reminder that for a denial of coverage to commence a limitation period, it needs to be clear and unambiguous:

[23]           It is not clear that the words used by the Sun Life letter of February 24, 2014 was a denial of disability benefits that amounted to “injury, loss or damage.” It used milder language than denial or refusal, and suggested that Ms. Clarke might “feel Totally Disabled from Any Occupation.” It invited more information to support her feeling.  However, it also said that her file was closed. This leads to an ambiguity, which leaves it unclear whether or not Ms. Clarke’s loss had “ripened” at this stage. However, assuming that Ms. Clarke’s loss was sufficiently identifiable at this point, a second issue must be addressed, that is whether Ms. Clarke was aware at the time of the February 2014 letter that a proceeding would be the appropriate means to seek a remedy for that loss.

Update! The Court of Appeal overturned this decision.

Ontario: the principles of s. 13 acknowledgment

University Plumbing v. Solstice Two Limited contains a reasonably uncommon discussion of s. 13 acknowledgment principles:

[15]           The last payment made by Solstice to the Plaintiff was on September 5, 2012. There is written acknowledgment of the debt in the form of email correspondence by Mr. Chalmers to representatives of the Plaintiff on June 20, 2013, October 9, 2013, April 25, 2014, and August 8, 2014. Mr. Chalmers admits that he sent these communications and that they contained his electronic signature.

 [16]           According to ss. 13(1), (10), and (11) of the Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, these part payments and written acknowledgements bring the debt within two years of the commencement of the action. Under s. 13(8) these acknowledgments apply even though they may not contain specific promises to pay (although some of these communications do, in fact, contain such promises to pay the liquidated amount). The Court of Appeal has also confirmed that the acknowledgments do not have to specifically state the amount of the debt owing: Middleton v Aboutown Enterprises Inc., 2009, ONCA 466, at para 1; see also Back v Gilroy, 1977 CanLII 1548, at para 10 (Sask Dist Ct).
 [17]           This is especially the case where, like here, the actual amount is not a contentious issue: Phillips v Rogers, 1945 CanLII 500 (AB QB), [1945] 2 WWR 53, at para 26, citing Spencer v Hemmerde, [1922] 2 AC 507, 518. As stated by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench in I.D.H. Diamonds NV v Embee Diamond Technologies Inc., 2017 SKQB 79, at para 21, “the court will look at the circumstances in which it was written, and will construe it in the way in which the writer intended it to be construed by the person to whom it is addressed.”
 [18]           The Defendants make an issue of the fact that the written acknowledgements were digitally transmitted and were not signed by hand. Counsel for the Defendants points out that s. 13(10) of the Limitations Act states that signed written acknowledgments are what is required. However, the case law establishes that the issue in every case will be one of fact: Lev v Serebrennikov, 2016 ONSC 2093, at para 24.
 [19]           The communications here are virtually identical to those described in Fleisher Ridout Partnership Inc. v Tai Foong International Ltd., 2012] OJ No 4229, at para 16:
 I am of the view that the Emails are something more than a mere acknowledgment of the debt. Firstly, the defendant expresses regret and surprise that the invoices have not been already paid. In fact, not only does he not object or deny payment but he clearly and reservedly indicates that the invoices should have been paid already. Secondly, he agrees to take ‘action’ to pay them.

[20]           As in Lev, at para 24, the “email[s] can satisfy the requirements of s. 13 of the [Litmitations] Act concerning acknowledgment.” Context is everything in these situations. Counsel for the Defendants submits that if a limitation period is to be waived, formality is important to ensure that it was intended by the sender of the communication. Here, however, that is not a particularly contentious issue since the communications are repeated and fully acknowledged. The emails sent by Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Smith all contain digital signatures. Under different circumstances those might not amount to conscious acknowledgment of the debt, but here the two individuals who sent them specifically concede that they were intended to be unequivocal acknowledgments of the debt.

 [21]           Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Smith have admitted in discovery that Solstice repeatedly confirmed liability for the full balance owing. In an email dated September 18, 2015, Mr. Smith specifically stated that the debts remained owing and again reiterated an intent to pay. As already indicated, it is the Defendants’ position that Chalmers and Smith were speaking strictly in their capacities as directors and officers of Solstice, and not of DSD or personally. However, under s. 13(6) of the Limitations Act, an acknowledgment by one trustee (i.e. Solstice) is an acknowledgment by any other person who is a trustee or later becomes a trustee (i.e. DSD, Chalmers, and Smith). “[D]irectors [who] had knowingly participated in a fraudulent and dishonest breach of trust…were therefore personally liable as constructive trustees”: St Mary’s, at 620.

Ontario: the criteria for an enforceable tolling agreement

The decision in Markplan Inc. et al. v. Osman et al. provides a helpful discussion of what is necessary to make a tolling agreement enforceable:

[10]           It is asserted that there was a tolling agreement between the parties. Between December 2014 and February 2015, there were communications between counsel arising from the motion to dismiss the Alberta action. This included a forbearance by the plaintiffs in requiring a defence to this action, and an agreement “freezing any further steps” in all the actions “to facilitate discussions regarding potential for resolution.” Those discussions foundered not long after, in early 2015. There was no discussion of tolling of limitation periods, or of forbearance respecting any counterclaim. Indeed, to the extent that limitation periods were addressed at all in the correspondence, it was by the defendants, whose counsel noted that if the Alberta action was dismissed then an action would be commenced in Texas where “the relevant limitation period…is four years.”

 [11]           The law is clear that an enforceable tolling agreement under s. 22 of the Limitations Act must be “an express and bilateral agreement between the parties that contains a clear and unambiguous request by one party to toll a limitation period and an equally clear and unambiguous affirmative response by the other”: see PQ Licensing S.A. v. LPQ Central Canada Inc., 2018 ONCA 331 at para. 40.  The Court of Appeal has also held that “a mere promise to forbear does not suspend a limitation period”: Hamilton (City) v. Metcalfe & Mansfield Capital Corp., 2012 ONCA 156 at para. 80.
 [12]           The correspondence between counsel in this case does not meet the threshold of certainty required for a tolling agreement.  It never mentions tolling the Ontario limitation period, or the possibility of a counterclaim, and the “freezing” point is about all the actions pending settlement discussions which did not last.  Further, the defendants were alive to the concerns about limitations by referring to the Texas limitation period, but did not address the Ontario limitation period.
 [13]           If there was any doubt about a lack of agreement, it was later reflected in a submission made by the plaintiffs in the Alberta proceeding in which plaintiffs’ counsel, in addressing the loss of juridical advantage issue, noted that “Mr Osman was advised in August of 2013 of the Defendants’ [plaintiffs in this proceeding] intention to challenge the appropriateness of the forum of Alberta, yet he took no steps to either commence an action in an alternative jurisdiction in order to protect  his rights or seek to negotiate a tolling agreement.” This submission was made in a brief served on June 30, 2016. If Mr. Osman and the defendants thought before then that they had a tolling agreement, they ought to have raised it at that time. They did not, and instead waited an additional two years and three months before serving the impugned defence and counterclaim in this action.
 [14]           In sum, there was no agreement to toll the Ontario proceeding and any possible counterclaim.