Ontario

Ontario: the principles of notice under the PACA

The decision in McCarthy v. 2065943 Ontario Ltd. provides a good summary of the principles applicable to the notice requirement in s. 7 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act:

18.           The legislation in s. 7(1) offers a much more forgiving limitation period with respect to tort claims, employment claims, and statutory claims, but s. 7(3) imposes the 10-day deadline for notice “in respect of any breach of the duties attaching to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property”. This 10-day notice provision is considered an essential step in a proceeding against the Crown when occupiers’ liability is concerned, and for the most part it must be strictly observed.  Failure to comply with the notice provision renders the proceeding a nullity:  Zuliani Ltd. v. Windsor (City) (1973), 1973 CanLII 671 (ON SC), 2 O.R. (2d) 598 (H.C.), at para. 6.

 19.           The purpose of this notice requirement is to “target occupiers’ liability” with a special and strict notice requirement”: Latta v. Ontario (2002), 2002 CanLII 45117 (ON CA), 62 O.R. (3d) 7 (C.A.), at para. 18.  Such notice has been held to be driven by a policy that permits the Crown to gather sufficient information either to seek to resolve a claim or prepare a defence to an anticipated action: West v. West, 2013 ONSC 247, at para. 14; cf. Mattick Estate v. Ontario (Ministry of Health), 2001 CanLII 24086 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 21 (C.A.), at para. 15.

 20.           Strict compliance with the notice provision has been relaxed in certain circumstances.  Thus, imperfect notice that takes into account the frailties or limitations of an injured plaintiff may nevertheless be deemed sufficient to put the Crown on notice that a claim could reasonably be anticipated: Latta, at paras. 30-35; Leone v. University of Toronto Outing Club, [2006] O.J. No. 4131 (Sup. Ct.), at paras. 75-76. Moreover, there is no indication in the PACA that the notice must be in writing, written by the hand of the plaintiff, or be in any particular prescribed form, so long as it provides the requisite elements of proper notice: Coulter v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources), 2014 ONSC 1573, at paras. 61-67.

The court also explains why attempting to circumvent the notice requirement by framing an occupier’s liability claim as negligence is fraught:

21.           No notice to the MNR was given by anyone within the ten days following the date of the incident in this proceeding, August 10, 2014.  Even on a generous interpretation of the PACA, reading a “discoverability” requirement into the determination of the date that constitutes “after the claim arose” for the purposes of a third party claim under  7(3) of the PACA, no notice was provided within 10 days of the date the defendant points to for discovery of the claim, July 11, 2018.  Notice to the MNR was not provided until September 14, 2018, more than 60 days after the “discoverability” date.

 22.           The defendant raises two main arguments against the PACA notice requirement advanced by the MNR.  It asserts that its third party claim addresses negligence, and not occupier’s liability, and is not therefore subject to the 10-day limitation.  It further submits that no such notice is necessary in the circumstances of this case, and that the MNR has suffered no prejudice from the absence of notice.

 23.           The defendant argues that its claim involves negligence of MNR servants and employees in the placement, clarity, and maintenance of necessary signage, and is not a claim “in respect of any breach of the duties attaching to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property.”  On such an argument, the claim relates to negligence, and not to occupier’s liability, and is subject to the more lenient notice requirement in  7(1) of the PACA.

 24.           However, such an argument rings hollow in the circumstances of this case, where all of the defendant’s allegations in its third party claim actually appear to relate to issues of occupiers’ liability, and duties attaching to the ownership of property.  Indeed, a claim that is, in substance, “in respect of a breach of duties attaching to the ownership of property” does not escape into the tort claim provision under  5(1)(a) of the PACA, so as to bypass the 10-day notice required for s. 5(1)(c) property-related claims, merely by disguising its true nature under an over-arching assertion of negligence: Daoust-Crochetiere v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources), 2014 ONCA 776, at para. 3; Latta, at para. 18.  This argument fails.

 25.           Given the passage of time before the defendant became aware of the signage issue that was raised by the plaintiff only at her discoveries, the defendant submits that the purposes served by strict application of the notice requirement cannot be fostered in any way in relation to this third party claim, which almost necessarily arose much later than ten days after the date of loss.  By the time the defendant was served with the plaintiff’s claim, the MNR’s opportunity to investigate was already significantly attenuated.  It is submitted that strict application of  7(3) of the PACA to defendants seeking to launch third party claims will result in injustices.

 26.           The defendant also argues that in this case the MNR suffered no prejudice as a result of the failure by the defendant to provide notice, as Ms. Snarr conducted her own investigation that must have contemplated the possibility of litigation, since the MNR now seeks to wrap her report in “litigation privilege”.  The defendant argues that the policy behind the PACA notice has therefore been met, even if the notice requirement has not been.

 27.           To accede to this argument would require a court to read into the provisions of the PACA an exception that its legislators did not see fit to include.  While some areas of plaintiff incapacity have resulted or may result in a forgiving application of the PACA notice requirements in certain circumstances, such as with respect to the form of notice, a flexible approach that would bypass a notice requirement altogether, even in the absence of prejudice to the Crown, reads into the legislation an exception that does not exist.  The Ontario Court of Appeal has specifically rejected such an approach: Daoust-Crochetiere, at para. 12.

 28.           This argument also does not take into account the elements that make up proper notice under the PACA.  Adequate notice must contain both sufficient particulars to allow the Crown to identify the source of the potential problem, so that it can investigate, and a complaint in some form, to alert the Crown to the importance of investigation to avert a potential claim or prepare a defence to an impending claim: Latta, at paras. 26-27, 42; Mattick Estate, at paras. 15-18; Conners v. Ontario (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2016 ONSC 7238, at paras. 21-22.

 29.           The Crown had a right under the legislation to be alerted to the defendant’s third party complaint relating to signage long before September 14, 2018, so that it would be encouraged to conduct what investigation it still could in as timely a way as possible.  Ms. Snarr’s report, though it may contain significant details of the incident, the names of individuals involved, and injuries sustained, has not been shown to have been directed to the plaintiff’s allegations about improper signage in the Park.  This argument must fail.

Ontario: Court of Appeal on the interaction of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) and s. 18 of the Limitations Act

Two aspects of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ridel v. Goldberg are noteworthy.

First, the court held that a contribution and indemnity proceeding does not become an appropriate remedy for a loss only when the main action resolves.  Section 5(1)(a)(iv) will not suspend the limitation period as against a second defendant where a plaintiff has commenced a legal proceeding against another defendant for the same wrong:

[70]      The appellants rely on s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act to argue that the appeal of the 2013 Judgment postponed the running of the limitation period against e3m. They say that, because the appeal may have eliminated e3m’s liability to the Ridels and hence e3m’s claim against Goldberg, they would not reasonably have known that an action was “an appropriate means” to seek to remedy e3m’s losses until the appeal was dismissed.

[72]      The appellants rely on this court’s decision in Independence Plaza 1 Associates, L.L.C. v. Figliolini, 2017 ONCA 44, 136 O.R. (3d) 202, a case involving an action in Ontario to enforce a foreign judgment, in support of their argument that it was not legally appropriate to commence a claim against Goldberg until the appeal of the 2013 Judgment was determined. In Figliolini, this court held, at para. 77:

 In the usual case, it will not be legally appropriate to commence a legal proceeding on a foreign judgment in Ontario until the time to appeal the judgment in the foreign jurisdiction has expired or all appeal remedies have been exhausted. The foreign appeal process has the potential to resolve the dispute between the parties. If the judgment is overturned, the debt obligation underlying the judgment creditor’s proceeding on the foreign judgment disappears.

[73]      The appellants say that, just as this court held that the basic limitation period for an action to enforce a foreign judgment in Ontario runs from the date of exhaustion of all appeals (subject to discoverability principles), the same should apply to a claim that, as here, is based on a domestic judgment. In either case, the debt obligation underlying the claimant’s proceeding would disappear if the judgment were overturned.

 [74]      In my view, Figliolini does not apply by analogy or otherwise. The main issue in Figliolini was whether s. 16(1)(b) of the Limitations Act (which provides that there is no limitation period in respect of, among other things, “a proceeding to enforce an order of a court, or any other order that may be enforced in the same way as an order of a court”) would apply to an action to enforce a foreign judgment. The court rejected that argument, and then went on to determine when the basic two-year limitation period for an action to enforce a foreign judgment would begin to run.
 [75]      Figliolini dealt only with actions to enforce foreign judgments. Strathy C.J.O. noted that “a judgment creditor who brings an Ontario proceeding on a foreign judgment must show that the foreign court had jurisdiction and that the judgment is final and for the payment of money”: at para. 51. An action to enforce a domestic judgment is, by s. 16(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, not subject to any limitation period. And, importantly, actions such as the present action – which are not to enforce a judgment, but to claim indemnity – are governed by their own provisions in the Limitations Act that would be entirely undermined if the appellants’ argument were given effect. This is the fatal flaw in the appellants’ reliance on Figliolini.
 [76]      Unlike proceedings to enforce a foreign judgment, which require finality, there is no requirement that in order to effectively claim contribution and indemnity there must be a final judgment against the claimant. To the contrary, the two-year limitation period runs from the date the claim is made against the first wrongdoer, subject to the discoverability rules in s. 5(1)(a): Mega International, at para. 74. In Canaccord, this court noted that s. 18 of the Limitations Act specifically departs from the previous law for contribution claims between tortfeasors, where the limitation period ran against the party claiming indemnity from the date of judgment: at para. 20.
 [77]      While not determinative, this court’s decision in 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, is instructive. In that case, the appellants relied on s. 5(1)(a)(iv) to argue that an appeal against other parties, if successful, might have eliminated their losses and that they therefore did not know that their action for contribution and indemnity was “an appropriate means” to seek to remedy their losses until the appeal was dismissed. At para. 13, the court rejected this argument, stating:
 [Section] 5(1)(a)(iv) is not intended to be used to parse claims as between different defendants and thus permit one defendant to be pursued before turning to another defendant. Rather, it is intended to address the situation where there may be an avenue of relief outside of a court proceeding that a party can use to remedy their ‘injury, loss or damage’….

I agree with the latter observation that s. 5(1)(a)(iv) is not intended to operate in the manner proposed by the appellants.

[78]      In the present appeal, the appellants assert that it was legally appropriate for e3m to delay an action against Goldberg until the Prior Action was finally disposed of on appeal. This is precisely the sort of litigation in stages which will not delay the commencement of a limitation period for purposes of s. 5(1)(a)(iv). In the usual case, s. 5(1)(a)(iv) will not suspend the limitation period as against a second defendant where a plaintiff has commenced a legal proceeding against another defendant for the same wrong: Presley, at para. 31. This general principle is buttressed by the specific and certain rules for the commencement of claims for contribution and indemnity ushered in by s. 18 of the Limitations Act. Sharpe J.A., in Canaccord, carefully described the legislative history in concluding that s. 18 provided a “marked departure from” and “significant reforms to” the previous regime governing limitation periods for claims for contribution and indemnity: at para. 27. Under the previous law, a tort claimant seeking contribution and indemnity could wait for judgment in the main action before commencing a claim for indemnification. In contrast, “s. 18 significantly shortens the limitation period governing contribution and indemnity claims to two years from the date the first alleged wrongdoer was served with the underlying claim, thereby encouraging resolution of all claims arising from the wrong at the same time”: Canaccord, at para. 20.

This is the first time the court has confronted the tension between s. 18 and its recent appropriateness jurisprudence.  It is settled that an alternative process with the potential to eliminate the plaintiff’s loss can suspend the discovery of a claim.  In a claim for contribution and indemnity, if the main action results in the dismissal of the claim, the defendant will have no loss for which to claim contribution and indemnity.  The main action will have eliminated the plaintiff’s loss.

However, this is clearly at odds with the intent of s. 18, which the court notes.  I think the court resolved this problem as best it could: the main action is not an alternative process, but the same litigation.

Secondly, the court reiterated that s. 12 of the Limitations Act applies to claims asserted by a creditor who has taken an assignment of a claim of a bankrupt under s. 38 of the BIA. The applicable date of discovery is the earlier of the predecessor’s discovery of the claim, or the person claiming through the predecessor’s discovery of the claim.  The assignment does not restart the limitation period.

The court’s analysis is well-reasoned and instructive:

[44]      In this case, by contrast, the appellants are pursuing a claim that initially belonged to e3m and that vested in the trustee on e3m’s bankruptcy. The claim for breach of Goldberg’s fiduciary and other duties to e3m is not one that the appellants could have pursued before e3m’s bankruptcy. Indcondo did not address the question of when the limitation period under s. 12 would run in respect of a creditor who may well have known of the potential claim by the bankrupt, but had no way to enforce it until the bankruptcy.

 [45]      The appellants characterize the motions judge’s error here as a failure to consider s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act in relation to the claim against Goldberg. Whether a proceeding was an appropriate means to remedy a claim is an essential element in the discoverability analysis and the failure to consider s. 5(1)(a)(iv) is an error of law: Presley, at para. 15.
 [46]      I agree with the appellants that, because they lacked capacity to bring a claim in the name of e3m against Goldberg, any personal knowledge they might have had before e3m’s bankruptcy respecting a claim did not cause the limitation period to run against them pursuant to s. 12(1). In my view, however, this result does not flow from the application of s. 5(1)(a)(iv).
 [47]      In determining when the limitation period began to run in respect of the appellants’ claim, the question is when they, as “claimants” – that is, as persons who reasonably had the claim in question – knew or ought to have known of the matters referred to in s. 5(1)(a). The application of the test in s. 5(1)(a) requires first that the claims at issue be defined or identified: Morrison, at paras. 33, 49.
 [48]      In this case, the claim advanced in the appellants’ action is not a claim by them personally, or one that they could have advanced personally (as was the case in Indcondo), but a claim they are asserting on behalf of the bankrupt, e3m, against its former principal, Goldberg. Section 5(1) applies to “the person with the claim”. When they were litigating against e3m in the Prior Action, the appellants may well have known of the various matters under s. 5(1)(a) in the general sense, but because they were not and could not have been “the persons with the claim” at that stage, any such knowledge was immaterial.
 [49]      Until e3m was bankrupt, any claim against Goldberg for breach of his duties as a director could only be pursued by e3m. The appellants had no right, title or interest in the claim. They had no ability to bring the claim while the claim continued to belong to e3m.

[51]      Similarly, in this case, the appellants could not have asserted a claim against Goldberg for wrongs done to e3m until they obtained the s. 38 order. In other words, until they obtained the s. 38 order, they had no standing to claim for e3m’s losses. Any knowledge of Goldberg’s wrongdoing in relation to e3m, whether by virtue of what they themselves had pleaded in the Prior Action, or when they received Pepall J.’s reasons in the 2013 Judgment, was not sufficient for them to be able to act.

 [52]      The motions judge’s conclusion that, because of their personal knowledge of the material facts in relation to e3m’s claim against Goldberg, the limitation period began to run against the appellants as early as July 2006 and as late as April 2013, was therefore in error. Their knowledge of those matters did not become relevant until they had or ought reasonably to have had the authority to pursue the claim, which was, at the very earliest, upon the bankruptcy of e3m in January 2015.
 [53]      Under this analysis, s. 5(1)(a)(iv) is not engaged. The question is not whether the appellants knew or ought to have known that a proceeding by the company would be an appropriate remedy for Goldberg’s alleged wrongs. Until they had control over the claim, or the means to obtain such control (by moving promptly in e3m’s bankruptcy), they were not “claimants” for the purpose of s. 5(1)(a) and therefore their knowledge was not the knowledge of claimants under the section.

Ontario: the Court of Appeal leaves determining who discovers a corporation’s claim to another day

In Service Mold + Aerospace Inc. v. Khalaf, the Court of Appeal confronted the question of whose knowledge informs the s. 5 analysis when the plaintiff is a corporation, but without answering it.  This was the second time in 2019 that a court acknowledged that this remains unresolved without resolving it.

[28]      In appealing this finding, the appellant bank focused primarily on its claim that the motion judge erred in principle by using Mr. Schuurman’s abilities and circumstances, instead of those of the corporations. It argues that since the claim belongs to the corporate plaintiffs, the s. 5(1)(b) test should have focused on their abilities and circumstances, not Mr. Schuurman’s.

 [29]      I need not resolve this issue because […].
 The Court also overturned the motion judge’s s. 5 analysis on the basis that it ignored the objective component of the modified-objective test.  It’s a very good critique, and provides a helpful list of the considerations that might inform the test’s application:

[29]      […] in my view, the motion judge clearly erred in applying the modified objective test by conducting a purely subjective inquiry. Rather than imbuing the hypothetical reasonable person with the abilities and circumstances of Mr. Schuurman, she imparted on that person the attitudes and practices of Mr. Schuurman, thereby defeating the objective reasonableness inquiry.

 [30]      She said:
 The reasonable person standard is to be applied taking into account the “abilities” and the “circumstances of the person with the claim”. It seems to me that when the “reasonable person” standard in the context of s. 5(1)(b) is applied in this case, the circumstances of Mr. Schuurman include the organization of his business at the time of the fraud. The organization of the business, and particularly the bookkeeping part of that business, lacked a segregation of duties. Without a segregation of duties as described by Ms. Grogan, the plaintiffs were vulnerable to bookkeeper fraud. To put the analysis another way, the “abilities and circumstances’” of Mr. Schuurman included his overly trusting, perhaps gullible nature and his resultant vulnerability.

[31]      First, an issue in the case was whether the respondent corporations failed to know what they ought to have known, because the bookkeeping part of their business was not monitored as it reasonably should have been. The motion judge begged that question by assuming that a reasonable person would have the same bookkeeping practices as the respondent corporations had. Simply put, in identifying the “circumstances of the person” that the reasonable person will share with the plaintiff, it is an error in principle to infer that the reasonable person would conduct itself in the same way that the plaintiff did. To do so is to eviscerate the objective component of the test. That is what the motion judge did here.

 [32]      Second, s. 5(1)(b) is about knowing what one ought to know. In context, the reasonable person component of s. 5(1)(b) serves to ensure that the plaintiff acted with reasonable levels of prudence and attention in attending to the risk of injury, loss or damage. Because the objective component of the test is modified, the degree of prudence and attention that can reasonably be expected will vary among persons with claims, according to their abilities and circumstances – things such as level of intelligence, education, experience, resources, health, power imbalances, dependence, and situational pressures or distractions that might bear on the ability to appreciate what is happening. It is imperative to remember, however, notwithstanding that the term “abilities” may be wide when viewed in isolation, s. 5(1)(b) requires that once material characteristics are attributed to the reasonable person, that hypothetical person will remain reasonable. If the hypothetical person is imbued with unreasonable imprudence or inattention the objective component of the test is defeated, and only one result can obtain.

Ontario: discovery analyses are fact-driven

In Steele Industrial Supplies Inc. v. Elliott, the Superior Court found that an employer who knows that it has been defrauded by an employee, and has called the police in regards of that fraud, doesn’t necessarily know that a proceeding is an appropriate remedy for the fraud loss.

The decision is noteworthy as an example of how fact-driven discovery analyses are.  I think most people would consider it safe to presume that an employer who learns that an employee has committed a fraud has discovered a claim against that employee, but, as this decision shows, it depends on the facts. These are the material paragraphs:

[35]           I agree with the submission made on behalf of the defendants that, by the time Mr. D’Agostino placed his call to the police, the first three requirements of s. 5(1)(a) had been met. As the defendants correctly submit, the law does not require absolute certainty before the limitation clock starts to tick: Kowal v. Shyiak, 2012 ONCA 512, at para 18. Nonetheless, in my view, the clock did not start to tick regarding the requirement in s. 5(1)(a)(iv) until later.

[36]           In Federation Insurance Co. of Canada v. Markel Insurance Co. of Canada, 2012 ONCA 218, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the fourth requirement set out in s. 5(1)(a)(iv). On behalf of the court, Sharpe J. A. wrote (para. 34):

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 [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.

[37]           Section 5(1)(a)(iv) requires that the court have regard to “the nature of the injury, loss or damage”. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that what was involved here was an allegation that Mrs. Elliott, a ten-year employee who was in a position of trust, had defrauded her employer. This was not a case of failed cosmetic surgery or faulty construction. Here, the act or omission was much less obvious, and the allegation was much more odious. I accept that an employer might not be in a position to know that an action was appropriate until it had confronted the suspected employee.

[38]           In both his examination for discovery and in his statement of September 9, 2012 to the police, Mr. Wilson said he had not fired Mrs. Elliott before Mr. D’Agostino called the police because he was concerned that, if he did, Mrs. Elliott might have a claim for wrongful dismissal. While Mr. Watchorn told the police a few days after Mrs. Elliott was fired that he was reasonably sure that Mrs. Elliott was responsible for a loss by July 2012, he was much less sure before she confessed. In a statement he gave on August 31, 2012, Mr. Watchorn used the word “suspect” frequently when referring to his belief about Mrs. Elliott’s actions. Mrs. Watchorn stated at that time that he was still in the process of conducting a cash test to corroborate his findings.

[39]           It is clear from the fact that Mrs. Elliott was not fired until she was confronted on September 24, 2012 that Mr. Wilson was not certain enough of Mrs. Elliott’s guilt to risk being a defendant in a wrongful dismissal suit, let alone being a plaintiff in an action for theft and fraud. In these circumstances, I believe it was reasonable for Mr. Wilson to wait to fire Mrs. Elliott until after he had confronted her, and to commence an action within two years of that date, which he did.

[40]           For these reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action as being out of time must fail. However, I am not limited to simply dismissing the motion. Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff has not brought a motion seeking the opposite relief, the court may make a finding as to when the limitation period began and may make a declaration accordingly: Kassburg v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2014 ONCA 92, at para. 52. Based on the foregoing facts, I find that the limitation period began to run on September 24, 2012.

 

Ontario: the principles of s. 7 capacity

The Superior Court decision in Enns v. Goertzen provides a detailed consideration of the Limitation Act’s s. 7 capacity provisions.  Two points are particularly noteworthy:

  1. It summarises the authorities for the principle that s. 7 capacity is distinct from legal capacity.
  2. Although it acknowledges that the Limitations Act does not define “incapable of commencing a proceeding”, instead of considering what this means the court takes the now standard approach of applying the factors developed for determining whether a party is under disability and requires a litigation guardian.  Section 7 incapacity encompasses parties under disability, but is much broader.  For example, s. 7 arguably encompasses a circumstance where a person is physically unable to commence a proceeding, perhaps because of some incapacitating injury, but has no mental impairment.  This the analysis:

[273]      In evaluating whether evidence of the nature described above is available on this motion, it is helpful to first consider the scope of the subject matter of s. 7(1) of the Act, which focuses on an individual’s lack of capability to commence a proceeding in respect of a claim.  The phrase “incapable of commencing a proceeding” is not defined in the Act (nor is the word “incapable”).  Further, the Act does not prescribe enumerated criteria that either must or may be considered by a court in determining whether a claimant has rebutted the presumption prescribed by s. 7(2) of the Act, other than its general reference to an individual’s physical, mental or psychological condition in s. 7(1) of the Act. As I will address below, the decided cases offer some additional guidance in that regard.

[274]      First, the issue of an individual’s capability to commence a legal proceeding must not be confused with other forms of legal capacity. For example, in this instance, each of the parties has adduced evidence that they say either demonstrates that after her stroke, Ms. Enns possessed legal capacity to engage in certain activities, other than commencing a proceeding or that she did not possess legal capacity to engage in certain activities, other than commencing a proceeding, respectively.

[276]      Yet, s. 7 of the Act is exclusively focused on an individual’s capability to commence a proceeding in respect of a claim, which is distinct from an individual’s capacity, to: consent to medical treatment; manage financial affairs; or even to “discover” a claim. Indeed, in Cook v. Joyce, 2016 ONSC 2164, 130 O.R. (3d) 114, rev’d on other grounds 2017 ONCA 49, at para. 138, Perell J. articulates the clear distinction between the mental state that is required to subjectively and objectively discover that one has a claim (discoverability) and the capacity to sue.  He also distinguishes the capacity to commence an action from other legally recognized forms of capacity, at para. 178, as follows:

This type of legal phenomenon of different mental states coexisting is not unknown to the law.  The mental capacity to sue is not the same as the mental capacity to contract, or to marry, or to execute a will, or to consent to medical treatment.  To take a simple example, a teenager involved in a car accident might have discovered her claim without a litigation guardian having been appointed, the limitation period for that discovered claim would be suspended because the teenager would be a minor without the legal capacity to sue. [Emphasis added.]

Finally, he cautions that the issues of “discoverability and legal capacity to sue should not be conflated” (see: para. 180).

[277]      To that, I would add that an individual’s legal capability (or incapability) to commence a proceeding ought not to be conflated with the individual’s capacity to:  consent to medical treatment; consent to the disclosure of health related or other personal information; or to manage their own financial affairs. A conclusory finding that an individual was, for example, capable of consenting to medical treatment at a certain point in time, is not synonymous with a finding that an individual was, at that point in time, capable of commencing a proceeding in respect of a claim.  Similarly, a finding that an individual was or is incapable of managing his or her own financial affairs or property does not unequivocally prove that the person was or is incapable of commencing a proceeding.

[278]      Second, in order to negative the presumption prescribed by s. 7(2) of the Act (and stop the running of the limitation period) a claimant is not required to prove that he or she is a mental defective, a mental incompetent, or of unsound mind.  Instead, the issue remains whether a person’s physical, mental or psychological condition renders that person incapable of commencing a proceeding in respect of a claim, at any time before the appointment of a litigation guardian. If so, the accrual of the limitation period is suspended during the period of incapacity.  That standard recognizes that it is unfair to run a limitation period against a plaintiff who is incapable of commencing an action: see Landrie v. Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, 2014 ONSC 4008, at paras. 29-32.
[279]      Third, the decided cases assist in identifying relevant factors for consideration when determining whether a person is incapable of commencing a proceeding in respect of a claim.  For example, in Huang v. Braga, 2016 ONSC 6306, at para. 19, leave to appeal to Divisional Court refused, 2017 ONSC 3826, Archibald J. curates from the jurisprudence, several factors that merit consideration when determining whether a party is under a disability and requires a litigation guardian specifically:
(a)        A person’s ability to know or understand the minimum choices or decisions required and to make them;

(b)        An appreciation of the consequences and effects of his or her choices or decisions;

(c)        An appreciation of the nature of the proceedings;

(d)      A person’s inability to choose and keep counsel;

(e)        A person’s inability to represent him or herself;

(f)        A person’s inability to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant issues; and,

(g)        A person’s mistaken beliefs regarding the law or court procedures.

[280]      In Hengeveld v. Ontario (Transportation), 2017 ONSC 6300, at para. 21, Hebner J. considered the foregoing factors when determining whether a party was “incapable”.  Subsequently, in Carmichael v. Glaxosmithkline Inc., 2019 ONSC 2037, at para. 40, Lederer J. similarly found that the foregoing factors merit consideration when determining if a party is incapable of commencing an action in accordance with s. 7 of the Act. Indeed, I have considered the foregoing factors, in the context of the available evidence, when determining whether the evidence discloses a genuine issue with respect to Ms. Enns’ historical capacity to commence a proceeding.

The decision also holds that there is no general rule requiring medical evidence to establish historical capacity:

[281]      In Carmichael, the court was assisted by expert opinion evidence concerning the plaintiff’s ability (or lack thereof) to commence a proceeding in respect of a claim during a specified time period that occurred before the proceeding was commenced.  Expert evidence directly addressing that issue has not been adduced by any party in the context of this motion.

[282]      The defendants seize on the absence of evidence from a qualified expert, expressly opining that Ms. Enns was incapable of commencing a proceeding in respect of her claim against them any earlier than she did, as a basis to conclude that there is no genuine issue that requires a trial to determine whether she has proved facts contrary to the presumption prescribed by s. 7(2) of the Act. They posit that a plaintiff relying on an alleged historical “incapacity to sue” as a means to extend the running of a limitation period must adduce specific medical evidence that he or she lacked capacity to bring a claim within the two year limitation period.
[283]      Yet, the provisions of the Act do not mandate that evidence of that nature be adduced. I am not persuaded that such evidence must necessarily and unequivocally be lead, in every case, on behalf of a person with a claim, who seeks to prove facts contrary to the presumption prescribed by s. 7(2) of the Act. I will explain.
[284]      The jurisprudence generally lends support to the proposition that a party seeking to prove facts contrary to the presumption set out in s. 7(2) of the Act is well served by adducing medical evidence on the issue.  For example, in Cook v. Joyce, Perell J. states at para. 152:
It should not escape notice that but for the presumption of incapacity available to victims of sexual assault, a plaintiff relying on incapacity to sue as a means to extend the running of a limitation period would likely have to provide medical evidence indicating that he or she lacked the capacity to bring a claim within the two year limitation period (see: Deck International Inc. v. Manufacturers Life Insurance, 2012 ONCA 309 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 4 and 6; Klimec v. Klos, [2013] O.J. No. 3740 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para. 25; Reid v. Crest Support Services (Meadowcrest) Inc., 2013 ONSC 6264 (Ont. S.C.J.), at paras. 13-17). [Emphasis added.]

[285]      Similarly, in Deck International Inc. v. Manufacturers Life Insurance, 2012 ONCA 309, the plaintiffs appealed an order of summary judgment dismissing their action for long term disability benefits.  After recounting: the motion judge’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of incapacity, such that s. 7 of the Act would apply; and the appellants’ submission that the motion judge failed to consider all the evidence before the court, the Court of Appeal concluded, at para 6:

We do not accept this submission.  There was no medical evidence to the effect that Mr. Donaldson lacked the capacity to commence the action within the meaning of s. 7.  There was evidence from family members as to his disability, but that is not the same thing as medical evidence going to the issue of capacity to commence an action. [Emphasis added.]

[286]      Similar sentiments were expressed in Reid v. Crest Support Services (Meadowcrest) Inc., 2013 ONSC 6264, at para. 17, and Aletkina v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2014 ONSC 6263 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 11-14.

[287]      In my view, the foregoing authorities do not establish a general legal principle that: a party that seeks to prove facts contrary to the presumption prescribed by s. 7(2) of the Act is, by necessity, required to adduce an expert medical opinion that the plaintiff lacked capacity to commence a proceeding in respect of a claim prior to the expiration of the limitation period; or that a plaintiff is always required to lead expert medical evidence that he or she is under a “legal disability”.  Although such evidence has the potential to be of great benefit in proving facts contrary to the presumption prescribed by s. 7(2) of the Act, there may be situations where evidence of the narrative circumstances alone is sufficient to negative that presumption, without the need for specified expert evidence on the point.  For example, where the evidence reveals that a “person with a claim” was unconscious while in a coma for a prolonged period of time.  In that circumstance, the type of expert medical evidence that the defendants assert must always be adduced on behalf of a person with a claim, would not be necessary in order to establish that the person was incapable of commencing a proceeding, while unconscious.
[288]      Even in the absence of a specific expert opinion of the type described by the defendants, medical evidence will often be the most compelling and expedient manner through which a party may prove the contrary to the presumption prescribed by s. 7(2) of the Act. In the absence of such evidence, a party may very well fall short of meeting its onus in that regard. Nonetheless, there have been instances where courts have concluded that a party has successfully rebutted the presumption prescribed by s. 7(2) of the Act, even in the absence of confirmatory medical opinion evidence on the issue:  for example, see Landrie, at paras. 35 and 53-56.

Ontario: whose knowledge binds a corporation?

Whose knowledge binds a corporation for the purpose of a s. 5 discovery analysis?

The Superior Court decision in 1511419 Ontario Inc. v. KPMG considers this issue:

[91]           The Defendants dispute that the Minutes of the Board are in fact the “best evidence” of what the Board knew in or around the time of the January 2012 Transaction.

[92]           They submit that a full meeting of the Board is not required for a corporation to acquire knowledge that it would otherwise obtain through its directing minds such as officers or directors: DBDC Spadina Ltd. v. Walton, 2018 ONCA 60 (CanLII), 419 D.L.R. (4th) 409, at paras. 59-60, leave to appeal to S.C.C. allowed, 2018 CarswellOnt 19181; Canadian Dredge and Dock Company Limited v. R., 1985 CanLII 32 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 662, at pp. 679-685, 707-709, 713-714, and 717-718.

[93]           They further go on to submit that it is also not clear what was recorded in the Board or Audit Committee Minutes, and overall the Minutes are not reliable.

[94]           Cash Store responds by submitting that, as a matter of law, the directing mind of a public corporation is its board of directors, acting as a collective: Stern v. Imasco Ltd. (1999), 1999 CanLII 14934 (ON SC), 1 B.L.R. (3d) 198 (Ont. S.C.), at paras. 98-113.

[95]           I do not propose to determine this dispute on this motion. I am prepared to accept that the Board Minutes are, at the very least, some evidence of what Cash Store knew at the relevant time periods.

Surprisingly, this significant limitations question remains to my knowledge unanswered.  It seems to me that the answer will be, as it usually is in the context of discovery arguments, “it depends on the facts”.

However, I am also mindful of the policy implications of the issue.  It’s problematic to deem the knowledge of directing minds to be the knowledge of a corporation for discovery purposes.  If an employee discovers a claim, and that discovery does not bind the corporation, the employee could determine when the limitation period commences by determining when to disclose her knowledge of the discovery matters to a directing mind.  This risks encouraging corporations to sit on their rights until they consider it most advantageous to exercise them. A directing mind of a corporation might advise an employee to refrain from disclosing any fraud allegations until confident in the success of a claim arising from them. This would be antithetical to the basic purpose of the limitations scheme to encourage the diligent and timely prosecution of claims.

Lastly, the decision is a warning against asking the court to decide a too-complicated limitations defence on summary judgment:

[113]      I cannot determine this matter in a fair and just manner by way of summary judgment. A review of the aforementioned affidavits and voluminous yet limited record do not provide the adequate context to determine the limitation period dispute. Particularly, I have no meaningful understanding as to the interaction between the parties in and around the time of the January 2012 Transaction that would assist me in determining the limitation issue. I also have no meaningful understanding of the assistance, or lack thereof, the Defendants rendered to Cash Store before, during, or after the January 2012 Transaction closed. The actions involve a complicated factual matrix involving professional negligence and a significant damages claim. In my view, the usual rule enunciated by Nordheimer J.A. in Mason should be followed. A full evidentiary record including viva voce evidence of the parties is required to achieve a fair and just result.

 

Ontario: the limitation of indefinitely available internet defamation

At issue in Torgerson et al. v. Nijem was the limitation of a claim arising from internet defamation where the impugned words remain available indefinitely.  The plaintiff argued that each day the words remain available gives rise to a new cause of action, a new claim, and a new limitation period.  Justice Schabas rejected this argument: “When a plaintiff becomes aware of a specific posting on a website, time begins to run for the purpose of applying limitation periods. To hold otherwise, and allow plaintiffs to wait indefinitely to sue simply because the libel remains available, would render limitations defences meaningless and have serious implications for freedom of expression.”.  The decision is well-reasoned and persuasive; I have no quibbles. This is the analysis:

[12]           Section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002 creates a general limitation period of two years from “the day on which the claim was discovered.” Section 5(2) of the Act creates a presumption that the claim is discovered when the act or omission took place, “unless the contrary is proved.”  Here, the defendant’s action in publishing the defamatory statements took place on January 18 and 19, 2016, and the plaintiff became aware of them within days, and no later than the end of January, 2016. The defendant therefore submits that it is plain and obvious that the action cannot succeed as the plaintiff did not commence this action until April 23, 2018, more than two years after the actions of the defendant were known, or “discovered”, by the plaintiff.

[13]           The plaintiff, however, relies on the “multiple publication” rule, that each publication of a defamatory communication is a separate and distinct libel, subject to its own limitation period. In the context of an electronic communication or publication on the internet, the argument goes, every time a person accesses or downloads the information there is a new claim and a new limitation period applies. In my view, the plaintiff’s position misunderstands the “multiple publication” rule and how it has been applied to the internet.

[14]           The “multiple publication” rule dates back to the somewhat infamous case of Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer (1849), 14 Q.B. 185, in which a cause of action arose after the Duke dispatched his manservant to purchase a back issue of a newspaper from the publisher in order to sue for a libel first published 17 years earlier. This, it was held, constituted a republication by the newspaper, allowing the plaintiff to avoid the limitation period.  The “multiple publication” rule established in that case has been subject to criticism, especially in light of the development of the internet.  American courts have rejected it, adopting a “single publication rule” in which limitation periods begin to run from the date of first publication: see, e.g., Firth v. State of New York, 775 N.E.2d 463 (NY Ct App 2002); Canatella v. Van de Kamp, 486 F. 3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2007).  And the British have now adopted a somewhat similar approach in s. 8 of the Defamation Act 2013, (U.K.) 2013, c. 26.

[15]           The multiple publication rule continues to find acceptance in Canada: see, e.g.,Carter v. B.C. Federation of Foster Parents Assn., 2005 BCCA 398 (CanLII); Shtaif v. Toronto Life Publishing Co. Ltd., 2014 ONCA 405 (CanLII).  In this case it is not necessary to address the validity of the rule, other than to note that it may be seen as another way of expressing the “repetition rule”, where someone has chosen to repeat or re-publish a defamatory statement, as the law provides that every person who repeats a libel is liable as if he or she is the original speaker: see Downard, Libel (Lexis Nexis, 3rd Ed., 2014) at paras. 5.32–5.44.

[16]           Another form of republication is found in Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19 (CanLII), on which the plaintiff relies. Statements posted on the internet in the United States were read, downloaded and republished by newspapers in Ontario, creating a cause of action against the American defendants in Ontario, as the tort of defamation occurs when and where the words are read by a third party, and the republication in Ontario was foreseeable as a natural and probable consequence of the posting of the statements on the internet. This does not mean, however, that every time a person reads the defamatory words in those newspapers a new cause of action arises and limitation periods can be avoided.  Applying the discoverability principle, a plaintiff must sue within two years of when he or she becomes aware of the defendant’s action in publishing the defamatory words, whether in print or on the internet.

[17]           The Ontario Court of Appeal considered republication and the multiple publication rule in Shtaif.  There, the plaintiffs had not provided notice of their intention to sue over the print article within six weeks of becoming aware of it, as required by s. 5 of the Libel and Slander Act.  However, they became aware of the internet publication later and did provide notice of it within the required time.  The plaintiffs then sought to include their complaint about the print version in their action against the magazine, relying on s. 6 of the Act which permits adding other claims for libel against the defendant that occurred within the previous year.

[18]           The Court considered and rejected applying the single publication rule, as it would be inconsistent with s. 6 of the Act. The analysis in Shtaif must be seen in the context of that case, which dealt with separate publication in two different mediums – print and online.  As the Court of Appeal observed more recently in John v Ballingall, at para. 35, Shtaif  “does not mean that each day of online publication grounds a new cause of action.”

[19]           In John v. Ballingall the plaintiff had missed the notice and limitation periods for publications by the media under the Libel and Slander Act, and argued that “for every day the defamatory words are published online, a new and distinct cause of action accrues and a new limitation period begins to run.” The Court of Appeal rejected that position, stating, at para. 35:

The appellant seeks to rely on an incorrect interpretation of the “multiple publication rule”. That concept provides that when an alleged libel is republished across different mediums, including the Internet, those republications are treated as distinct libels. In Shtaif, the court rejected the notion that the limitation period for a suit about an online magazine article starts to run when the plaintiff becomes aware of the printed version. This was the basis for the conflicting evidence on discoverability in Shtaif. This decision does not mean that each day of online publication grounds a new cause of action. The court in Vachon v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2015 ONSC 6096 (CanLII), expressly rejected this interpretation of Shtaif. I concur with Hackland J., who said, at para. 22:

The plaintiff argues that the alleged defamation should be taken as having been republished every day [while it] remained accessible on the internet … Shtaif does not support that proposition … any limitation period based on discoverability will run from the point where the internet defamation is discovered. [emphasis added]

[20]           The plaintiff seeks to distinguish John v. Ballingall on the basis that it only deals with notice periods under the Libel and Slander Act.  While that was the context, the case also engaged the 3 month limitation period under the Libel and Slander Act, and the same reasoning must apply.   The Libel and Slander Act simply creates a shorter limitation period, together with a notice requirement, in recognition of the special position of the media, allowing it the opportunity to publish timely corrections to minimize damage and to prepare defences when facts remain fresh.

[21]           In my view, the Court of Appeal in John v. Ballingall clearly rejected the proposition that just because defamatory words remain online and are available to be downloaded and read indefinitely, there is continuous publication allowing limitation periods to be ignored. As the Court noted, the multiple publication rule applies when something is “republished across different mediums”.  Such republications require specific acts by the publisher, or republisher, to further disseminate, or repeat, the libel, as was the case in Shtaif.

[22]           Furthermore, to give effect to the amendment in the Statement of Claim would create the potential for endless retriggering of limitation periods simply because the words remain on the internet. This would allow plaintiffs to sit on their rights until it suited them to take action, rather than sue when they become aware of the wrong. This would be unfair to defendants who would be subject to lawsuits indefinitely, and raises concerns about freedom of expression.

 

Ontario: the Court of Appeal on adding a new claim

In Klassen v. Beausoleil, the Court of Appeal provides a helpful summary of the analysis for determining whether proposed amendments assert a fundamentally new claim:

(1)         The test to be applied

[24]      I begin with the text of r. 26.01 of the Rules. It provides:

On motion at any stage of an action the court shall grant leave to amend a pleading on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment. [Emphasis added.]

[25]      The rule is framed in mandatory terms: the court must allow the amendment, unless the responding party would suffer non-compensable prejudice, the proposed pleading is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or the proposed pleading fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action: 158844 Ontario Ltd v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2017 ONCA 42 (CanLII), 135 O.R. (3d) 681, at para. 25; Iroquois Falls Power Corp. v. Jacobs Canada Inc., 2009 ONCA 517 (CanLII), 264 O.A.C. 220, at paras. 15-16.

[26]      The expiry of a limitation period is one form of non-compensable prejudice. A party cannot circumvent the operation of a limitation period by amending their pleadings to add additional claims after the expiry of the relevant limitation period: Frohlick v. Pinkerton Canada Ltd, 2008 ONCA 3 (CanLII), 88 O.R. (3d) 401, at para. 24; 1100997 Ontario Ltd. v. North Elgin Centre Inc., 2016 ONCA 848 (CanLII), 409 D.L.R. (4th) 382, at paras. 21-23; United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 175 Region 6 v. Quality Meat Packers Holdings Limited, 2018 ONCA 671 (CanLII), at paras. 64; Davis v. East Side Mario’s Barrie, 2018 ONCA 410 (CanLII), at paras. 31-32. In this regard, the “addition of new statute-barred claims by way of an amendment is conceptually no different than issuing a new and separate Statement of Claim that advances a statute-barred claim” (emphasis added): Quality Meat Packers, at para. 64; citing Frohlick, at para. 24.

[27]      An amendment will be statute-barred if it seeks to assert a “new cause of action” after the expiry of the applicable limitation period: North Elgin, at paras. 19-23, 33; Quality Meat Packers, at para. 65. In this regard, the case law discloses a “factually oriented” approach to the concept of a “cause of action” – namely, “a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person”: North Elgin, at para. 19; Quality Meat Packers, at para. 65.

[28]      An amendment does not assert a new cause of action – and therefore is not impermissibly statute-barred – if the “original pleading … contains all the facts necessary to support the amendments … [such that] the amendments simply claim additional forms of relief, or clarify the relief sought, based on the same facts as originally pleaded”: Dee Ferraro, at paras. 4, 13-14; North Elgin Centre Inc., at paras. 20-21; East Side Mario’s Barrie, at paras. 31-32; Quality Meat Packers, at para. 65. Put somewhat differently, an amendment will be refused when it seeks to advance, after the expiry of a limitation period, a “fundamentally different claim” based on facts not originally pleaded: North Elgin, at para. 23.

[29]      The relevant principle is summarized in Paul M. Perell & John W. Morden, The Law of Civil Procedure in Ontario, 3rd ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2017), at p. 186:

A new cause of action is not asserted if the amendment pleads an alternative claim for relief out of the same facts previously pleaded and no new facts are relied upon, or amount simply to different legal conclusions drawn from the same set of facts, or simply provide particulars of an allegation already pled or additional facts upon [which] the original right of action is based.[2]

[30]      In the course of this exercise, it is important to bear in mind the general principle that, on this type of pleadings motion, it is necessary to read the original Statement of Claim generously and with some allowance for drafting deficiencies: Farmers Oil and Gas Inc. v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources), 2016 ONSC 6359 (CanLII), 134 O.R. (3d) 390 (Div. Ct.), at para. 23.

[31]      Finally, the court may refuse an amendment where it would cause non-compensable prejudice. The prejudice must flow from the amendment and not some other source: Iroquois Falls, at para. 20. At some point the delay in seeking an amendment will be so lengthy, and the justification so inadequate, that prejudice to the responding party is presumed. In this event, the onus to rebut the presumed prejudice lies with the moving party: State Farm, at para. 25.

[32]      Alternatively, the responding party may resist the amendment by proving actual prejudice – i.e. by leading evidence that the responding party has lost an opportunity in the litigation that cannot be compensated by an adjournment or an award of costs as a consequence of the amendment. It is incumbent on the responding party to provide specific details of the alleged prejudice: State Farm, at para. 25.

[33]      Irrespective of the form of prejudice alleged, there must be a causal connection between the non-compensable prejudice and the amendment. The prejudice must flow from the amendment and not from some other source: State Farm, at para. 25.

[34]      Bearing in mind these principles, the framework to determine the issues raised by this appeal is as follows:

  •     Are the proposed amendments to assert a claim to a 33% ownership interest the assertion of a “new cause of action”? If the proposed amendments are the assertion of a new cause of action, are the amendments statute-barred?

  •     Irrespective of the above, is this a case where non-compensable prejudice will arise as a consequence of the amendments?

Ontario: contract repudiation and the commencement of time

 

The Court of Appeal decision in Hurst v. Hancock is a reminder that in a claim arising from anticipatory breach or repudiation of a contract, the limitation period may not commence until performance is due.  There can no be no claim until there is a cause of action, and there will be no cause of action until claimant accepts the breach, or affirms the contract and performance is due.

Ontario: Court of Appeal on rolling limitation periods and contractual limitation periods

The Court of Appeal decision in Marvelous Mario’s Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. is a noteworthy addition to “rolling limitation period” jurisprudence.

The appellants sought coverage under the business interruption cover of a commercial insurance policy issued by the respondent.  The policy contained a contractual limitation period:

ACTION: Every action or proceeding against the insurer for the recovery of any claim under or by virtue of this contract is absolutely barred unless commenced within one year next after the loss or damage occurs.

The trial judge held that the claim for business interruption losses was an ongoing claim and subject to a rolling limitation period.  The appellants discovered it on a date more than a year before commencing the coverage action.  However, it was subject to a rolling limitation period, a new claim accrued each day the appellant sustained a business interruption loss.  Those days within a year of the action give rise to timely claims.

The Court of Appeal rejected this reasoning.  First, it considered the nature of a rolling limitation period:

[35]      The jurisprudence suggests that a rolling limitation period may apply in a breach-of-contract case in circumstances where the defendant has a recurring contractual obligation. The question is not whether the plaintiff is continuing to suffer a loss or damage, but whether the defendant has engaged in another breach of contract beyond the original breach by failing to comply with an ongoing obligation. In cases where there have been multiple breaches of ongoing obligations, it is equitable to impose a rolling limitation period.

Second, it found that the trial judge erred by considering whether the appellants were continuing to suffer damages rather than whether the respondent was breaching a recurring contractual obligation:

[37]      In my view, where the trial judge erred was in focussing her analysis on the question of whether the appellants were continuing to suffer damages rather than on the issue of whether the respondent had a recurring contractual obligation. Unlike Pickering Square, where the tenant had a recurring obligation to occupy the premises every month during the term of the lease, the respondent was not obliged to make recurring payments. Rather, the policy covered business interruption losses and the respondent was obliged to pay those losses in their totality, subject to any limits in the policy. The fact that there was a 24-month cap on the business interruption losses does not convert the respondent’s obligation to indemnify into a recurring contractual obligation. Therefore, this was not a proper case for the application of a rolling limitation period.

[38]      The appellants knew as of the closing date for the sale of the businesses that they no longer had the assets under their control and that consequently they would thereafter suffer business interruption losses. While the precise amount of the damages was unknown, the appellants knew at that point that they had suffered loss or damage and under the policy they were obliged to commence a claim within one year. The fact that the extent of damages may not be known with precision does not stop the commencement of the limitation period: Peixeiro v. Haberman, 1997 CanLII 325 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549, at para. 18. The Second Action was consequently time-barred in its entirety.

This reasoning raises some interesting issues (which, I note sheepishly, I missed entirely when writing about the trial decision).

First, a word on the “rolling limitation period”.  The court’s language suggests that it’s an equitable principle: “In cases where there have been multiple breaches of ongoing obligations, it is equitable to impose a rolling limitation period”.  This isn’t quite right.

Statutory limitation periods apply to causes of action.  Subject to certain exceptions, one limitation period applies to one cause of action (in the case of the Limitations Act, one basic and one ultimate limitation period apply to one “claim”, which derives from a cause of action).

When there are circumstances that cause multiple causes of action to accrue periodically, one limitation period applies to each cause of action.  In the case of a contractual obligation that recurs daily (the court’s example), each day the defendant fails to perform the obligation a discrete breach of contract occurs that gives rise to a discrete cause of action.  Each discrete cause of action has its own limitation period.

Because these limitation periods have the same length, it will appear as if one limitation period commences anew each day,  The limitation period appears to roll.  This is the “rolling limitation period”.

A rolling limitation period is accordingly just convenient way to describe multiple limitation periods of the same length commencing regularly and consecutively.  It’s not a special kind of limitation period that exists independently of the statutory limitation scheme to be invoked as equity requires.

On my reading, the Court’s analysis is correct.  The Court found there was one cause of action that accrued on a particular date. There were no multiple causes of action, and there were accordingly no multiple limitation periods that could appear to roll.

All of this is to say that I question the value of the “rolling limitation period” in limitations analyses.  What purpose does it actually serve?  Instead of asking whether there is a rolling limitation period, you might just as easily, and certainly more accurately, ask whether there are recurring causes of action.

Now for the second issue: I’m doubtful cause of action accrual, or causes of action generally, had any place in the parties’ limitations analysis.

The limitation period is contractual.  It reflects the parties’ agreement on when the insured can sue the insurer.

The limitation period commences on the occurrence of the “loss or damage” and bars “absolutely” an action “against the insurer for the recovery of any claim” under the policy (that is, a claim for indemnification).

The triggering event is not the accrual of a cause of action, but the occurrence of the “loss or damage” for which the insured claims indemnification.  I suspect the policy provided coverage for some business interruptions that don’t arise from actionable misconduct.  This means the insured could seek recovery for a claim for indemnification of a loss that has nothing to do with a cause of action.

This makes it bewildering that the parties appear to have agreed that common law discovery applied to this limitation period

As I read the provision, its language excludes discoverability of any kind. The limitation period commences on the date of an event—the occurrence of loss or damage—and expires absolutely one year later.  The word “absolutely” would seem an explicit bar to discoverability or the suspension of time.  If the parties intended for discoverability to apply, they could have used language like “…unless commenced within one year next after the insured could first reasonably have learned of the loss or damage”.

It’s also impossible to apply common law discovery to a limitation period that commences on the date of an event rather than on the accrual of a cause of action.  Discovery is of a cause of action: the rule provides that a cause of action accrues when a plaintiff can first reasonably discover its material facts.  This is why the rule doesn’t apply to statutory limitation periods that commence on the date of an event (like s. 38 of the Trustee Act) .

Further, discovery is always in relation to the cause of action that gives rise to the proceeding.  In this case, the cause of action giving rise to the proceeding was the breach of the insurance agreement, and this is the cause of action to which the contractual limitation period applies.  The discovery of some of other cause of action that may have resulted in the event that is the trigger of the limitation period wouldn’t in the normal course be material to the commencement of time.  It’s so unusual for the limitation of one cause of action to be determined by the accrual of another cause of action that if the parties intended this to be so I’d expect explicit language to that effect in their agreement (I’ve never seen such language).

More generally, because this is a contractual limitation period, the parties ought to have grounded their positions in the language of the policy.  The material question strikes me as being whether the “loss or damage” occurred within the meaning of the policy each day the business interruption lasted, or on the date of the event that caused the business interruption.  This is a question of policy interpretation.

Without having read the policy, I see arguments on both sides.  I think the strongest argument is the one the court accepted.  The day of the peril that caused the business interruption—the transaction—caused the appellants to suffer the “loss or damage” for which they sought indemnification.  That the interruption lasted days goes to quantifying the loss, not when it occurred.  I would think the appellants’ notification would have been helpful; it’s easy to imagine that the appellants filed one notification in regards of the business interruption, which might have indicated they considered there to be one loss. I’m not sure why this didn’t appear to be part of the record.

The counterargument is that each day of business interruption was a new occurrence of loss.  This is effectively the rolling limitation period argument, except not one based on cause of action accrual.

I welcome your thoughts on this!