Ontario Act s. 5(1)(a)(iv)

Ontario: the CA on the impact of related criminal proceedings on the limitation of intentional torts

In Winmill v. Woodstock (Police Services Board), the Court of Appeal considered the appropriateness of a proceeding as a remedy to battery.  The decision is generally noteworthy for the quality of its s. 5(1)(a)(iv) analysis, but also of its application of s. 5 to the interaction between claims arising from intentional torts and related to criminal proceedings.  As the court’s dissent notes, the limitation of these claims is usually determined by the misapplication of common law principles, not s. 5.

The plaintiff sued the Woodstock police for negligent investigation and battery.  The police obtained summary judgment dismissing the claim arising from the battery as statute-barred, but not the claim arising from negligent investigation.  The plaintiff appealed successfully.

Justice MacPherson and Feldman undertook a refreshingly comprehensive and sound s. 5 analysis:

[18]      Turning to s. 5(1)(a) of the LA, in this case there is no issue with respect to the first three of the four factors set out in this clause. The appellant knew that he had been injured on June 1, 2014, that the injury was caused by physical blows to his body, and that at least some of the respondents administered those blows.

[19]      The crucial issue is the fourth factor: did the appellant know on June 1, 2016 that a legal proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the injuries caused by the alleged battery committed against him?

The court summarised the principles of applicable to s. 5(1)(a)(iv) analyses:

[22]      First, the word “appropriate” means “legally appropriate”.

[…]

[23]      Second, this does not mean that determining whether a limitation period applies involves pulling two simple levers – date of injury and date of initiation of legal proceeding – and seeing whether the result is inside or outside the limitation period prescribed by the relevant statute. On the contrary, other important factors can come into play in the analysis.

[…]

[24]      Third, within the rubric of “the specific factual or statutory setting of each individual case”, s. 5(1)(b) of the LA requires that attention be paid to the abilities and circumstances of the person with the claim […]

Those principles applied to the plaintiff’s claim meant it was timely:

[25]      Against this background of general principles, I turn to the motion judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s battery claim was outside (by one day) the two year limitation period prescribed by s. 4 of the LA. With respect, I think that the motion judge erred, essentially for three reasons.

[26]      First, the appellant’s negligent investigation claim is proceeding. The parties agree that the discoverability date for this claim is February 17, 2016, the day the appellant was acquitted on the criminal charges against him. Factually, the negligent investigation claim covers almost precisely the same parties and events as the battery claim. There was virtually no investigation in this case. The police were called, they arrived and immediately entered the appellant’s home, and some kind of altercation quickly unfolded.

[27]      In my view, the appellant’s Amended Statement of Claim shows how inextricably intertwined are the two alleged torts:

14 e.  The Defendant officers were present and knew or ought to have known that the Plaintiff did not commit an assault against any police officer. There was no reasonable cause for the Defendant officers to arrest or charge the Plaintiff with assault of a police officer.

14 f.   As the Plaintiff stood motionless, he was pushed violently in the chest by the Defendant Dopf. He was then thrown to the floor. Knee strikes and punches were then delivered by both the Defendants Dopf and Campbell. He was handcuffed, removed from the house and taken to the police station.

[28]      Second, I agree with the appellant that, in the specific factual setting of this case (407 ETR), and bearing in mind the circumstances of the person with the claim (Novak), it made sense for him to postpose deciding whether to make a battery claim against the respondents until his criminal charges for assault and resisting arrest were resolved. The criminal charges of assault and resisting arrest against the appellant and his tort claim of battery against the respondents are, in reality, two sides of the same coin or mirror images of each other.

[…]

[31]      In a similar vein, it strikes me as obvious that the verdict in the appellant’s criminal trial, especially on the assault charge, would be a crucial, bordering on determinative, factor in the appellant’s calculation of whether to proceed with a civil action grounded in a battery claim against the respondents.

[32]      Third, and overlapping with the second reason, there is a case almost directly on point suggesting that the appellant was justified in waiting for the verdict in his criminal trial before commencing a civil claim against the respondents. In Chimienti v. Windsor (City), 2011 ONCA 16 (CanLII), the plaintiff was charged with assault following a tavern brawl. The charge was dropped. The plaintiff commenced a civil action with claims of negligent and malicious investigation. The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis of the relevant statutory limitation period. This court, although dismissing the appeal on other grounds, disagreed with the motion judge’s analysis of the discoverability issue. In doing so, the court said, at para. 15:

[T]here is something of a logical inconsistency in asking a civil court to rule on the propriety of a criminal prosecution before the criminal court has had the opportunity to assess the merits of the underlying charge.

[33]      In my view, this passage is particularly applicable to this appeal. As I said earlier, the criminal charges of assault and resisting arrest against the appellant and his tort claim of battery against the respondents are very close to being two sides of the same coin or mirror images of each other. Accordingly, it made sense for the appellant to focus on his criminal charges and deal with those before making a final decision about a civil action against the respondents.

Justice Hourigan dissented:

[40]      In my view, the decision of this court in Markel Insurance Company of Canada v. ING Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 218(CanLII), 109 O.R. (3d) 652, is key to the correct outcome in this case. In that case, Sharpe J.A. explained that “appropriate” under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Act must mean “legally appropriate”, and, at para. 34, admonished against giving the term a broad meaning:

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 … would, in my opinion, inject an unacceptable element of uncertainty into the law of limitation of actions.

[41]      My colleague acknowledges the authority of Markel, but in my view undermines it by emphasizing the need to attend to the factual circumstances of individual cases, drawing on this court’s subsequent decisions in 407 ETR Concession Co. v. Day, 2016 ONCA 709 (CanLII), 133 O.R. (3d) 762, and Brown v. Baum, 2016 ONCA 325 (CanLII), 397 D.L.R. (4th) 161. But both of these cases are clearly distinguishable. An action in 407 ETR was not “appropriate” at the time of the injury because an alternative administrative means of settling the dispute had not been completed. An action in Brown was not “appropriate” at the time of the injury because the defendant surgeon was providing further treatment in an attempt to rectify the harm he was alleged to have caused in the initial surgery.

[42]      There was no alternative means of resolving the appellant’s allegations in this case, nor were the defendants in a position to rectify the harm they were alleged to have caused. My colleague considers it obvious that the appellant should await the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him, relying on dicta from Chimienti v. Windsor (City), 2011 ONCA 16 (CanLII), 330 D.L.R. (4th) 148. But that case, too, is distinguishable, among other reasons because it concerned claims of negligent and malicious investigation – claims that depended on the completion of the relevant criminal proceedings on which they were based.

[…]

[44]      Nor can a claimant delay the start of a limitation period for an intentional tort in order to await the outcome of related criminal proceedings. This approach has been followed by Ontario trial courts in many cases. For example, in Brown v. Becks, 2017 ONSC 4218 (CanLII), the court held that a limitation period involving various claims against police including battery during an arrest ran from the date of the plaintiff’s arrest, not the date of his acquittal on criminal charges; in Boyce v. Toronto (City) Police Services Board, 2011 ONSC 54 (CanLII), aff’d 2012 ONCA 230 (CanLII), the limitation period in a civil action against police ran from the date of the battery rather than the officers’ conviction on assault charges. See also EBF v. HMQ in Right of Ontario, et. al, 2013 ONSC 2581 (CanLII), and Wong v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 CanLII 66385 (ON SC), 2009 CarswellOnt 7412 (Ont. S.C.). Similarly, in Kolosov v. Lowe’s Companies Inc., 2016 ONCA 973 (CanLII), 34 C.C.L.T. (4th) 177, this court affirmed the trial judge’s decision that a limitation period involving intentional tortious conduct alleged to have occurred on arrest ran from the date of the arrest rather than the date of the withdrawal of the criminal charges. See also Roda v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 ONSC 743 (CanLII), aff’d 2017 ONCA 768 (CanLII). My colleague offers no reason to depart from this body of law.

I disagree with this reasoning particularly in regards of the jurisprudence holding that the limitation period commence always on a certain date, like the date of an arrest.  That jurisprudence misapplies common law principles of cause of action accrual to the Limitations Act’s discovery provisions.  As I have discussed many times [cite], it is not the case under the Limitations Act that all plaintiffs will discover a claim always on the happening of a particular event, like an arrest.

Lastly, I noted that the court cited its decision in West for the principle different limitation periods may apply to different torts:

[17]      I begin with a structural point. In a single case where a plaintiff alleges different torts, it is possible and permissible for different limitation periods to apply to the different torts: see West v. Ontario, 2015 ONCA 147 (CanLII), at paras. 2-3.

It’s not clear to me how there could be any uncertainty about this point.  The Limitations Act applies to “claims” pursued in court proceedings, that is, claims to remedy damage resulting from an act or omission.  There can only be one act or omission in a claim.  Discrete acts or omissions give rise to discrete claims.  A court may define an act expansively, so that, for example, one act of deceit is comprised of multiple unlawful acts, but an act could never be the actionable conduct in deceit and, say, negligent misrepresentation.  This applies equally to claims where the actionable conduct doesn’t sound in tort.

Ontario: Briefly, the principles of s. 5(1)(a)(iv)

In Velgakis v. Servinis, the Court of Appeal conveniently reduced the s. 5(1)(a)(iv) discovery principles in Presidential to two points:

[6]         In Presidential MSH, at paras. 17-20, this court clarified certain principles governing cases such as the one before us on the issue of discoverability:

1.      A legal proceeding against an expert professional may not be appropriate if the claim arose out of the professional’s alleged wrongdoing but may be resolved by the professional himself or herself without recourse to the courts, rendering the proceeding unnecessary.

2.       The defendant’s ameliorative efforts and the plaintiff’s reasonable reliance on such efforts to remedy its loss are what may render the proceeding premature. The plaintiff and defendant must have engaged in good faith efforts to right the wrong it caused.

Furthering the interested of brevity, in Tracy v. Iran (Information and Security),  the Court reduced the purpose of that provision to a sentence 2017 ONCA 549:

[79]      The purpose of the appropriateness criterion in s. 5(1)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002 is to deter needless litigation: Presidential MSH Corp. v. Marr, Foster & Co. LLP, 2017 ONCA 325 (CanLII), at para. 17. Given that a stay of the respondents’ proceedings on the U.S. judgments would be inevitable if they were brought at common law, it would have been fruitless to commence them before 2012 when the JVTA and SIA carved out an exception to Iran’s immunity. They were therefore not appropriate or discoverable before 2012.

 

 

Ontario: undertaking alternative remedial processes can delay discovery

Presidential MSH Corporation v. Marr Foster & Co. LLP is another excellent decision from the Court of Appeal applying s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act.  Where the plaintiff relies on an alternative process that would substantially eliminate its loss so that court proceedings would be unnecessary to remedy it, and the date the alternative process runs its course is reasonably ascertainable, a proceeding will not be an appropriate remedy until that alternative process concludes.

While this decision doesn’t break new ground, it clarifies the impact remedial measures can have on discovery of a claim.  This is of particular consequence in professional negligence claims, which was the case in Presidential.

The respondents filed the appellant’s corporate tax returns after their due date. As a result, the CRA denied tax credits that would have been available had the returns been filed on time.

The appellant received the CRA’s Notices of Assessment disallowing each of the claimed credits on April 12, 2010. When the appellant received the notices, he immediately asked the respodnents what to do and how to fix the problem.

The motion judge inferred that the respondents advised the appellant to retain a tax lawyer to determine how to solve the tax problem but didn’t advise him to obtain legal advice about a professional negligence claim against the respondents.

The appellant did retain a tax lawyer on April 15, 2010, but there was no discussion of a possible action against the respondents. The tax lawyer filed a Notice of Objection to the CRA assessments, as well as an application for discretionary relief. The respondent helped the appellant prepare its appeals to the CRA by drafting the application for relief and helping the appellant and its lawyer with whatever else they needed, until at least November 2011.

By letter dated May 16, 2011, the CRA responded to the Notice of Objection advising that it intended to confirm the assessments. It did in fact confirm them on July 7, 2011.

The motion judge found that, as late as July 2011, there was still a reasonable chance that the application for discretionary relief would mitigate some or all of the appellant’s loss.

On August 1, 2012, the appellant issued its statement of claim against the respondents. This was more than two years after the initial denial by CRA of the credits, but within two years of CRA’s refusal to alter the assessments in response to the Notice of Objection.

The motion judge held that the appellants claim would have been appropriate while the CRA appeal was still ongoing because the appeal would not have fully eliminated the appellant’s claim against the respondents.  In particular, it would not have eliminated the appellant’s claim for the costs of retaining a tax lawyer to prosecute it.

Justice Pardu rejected this reasoning.  She summarised the applicable principles:

[20]      First, the cases suggest that a legal proceeding against an expert professional may not be appropriate if the claim arose out of the professional’s alleged wrongdoing but may be resolved by the professional himself or herself without recourse to the courts, rendering the proceeding unnecessary.

[…]

[26]      Resort to legal action may be “inappropriate” in cases where the plaintiff is relying on the superior knowledge and expertise of the defendant, which often, although not exclusively, occurs in a professional relationship. Conversely, the mere existence of such a relationship may not be enough to render legal proceedings inappropriate, particularly where the defendant, to the knowledge of the plaintiff, is not engaged in good faith efforts to right the wrong it caused. The defendant’s ameliorative efforts and the plaintiff’s reasonable reliance on such efforts to remedy its loss are what may render the proceeding premature.

[27]      Finally, I note that cases in which a defendant who is an expert professional attempts to remedy a loss that a plaintiff has discovered and alleges was caused by the defendant (engaging the potential application of s. 5(1)(a)(iv)) are distinct from  cases in which courts have held that  a client has not discovered a potential claim for solicitor’s negligence until being advised by another legal professional about the claim: see Ferrara, at para. 70; and Lauesen v. Silverman, 2016 ONCA 327 (CanLII), 130 O.R. (3d) 665, at paras. 25-31. In the latter category of cases, the issue is whether the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have knowninjury, loss or damage had occurred (under s. 5(1)(a)(i)) that was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission of the defendant (under ss. 5(1)(a)(ii) and (iii)). Section 5(1)(a)(iv) comes into focus where the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known of his or her loss and the defendant’s causal act or omission, but the plaintiff contends the limitation period was suspended because a proceeding would be premature. Although discoverability under more than one subsection of s. 5(1)(a) may be engaged in a single case, it is important not to collapse the analysis of discoverability of loss or damage and the defendant’s negligence or other wrong with the determination whether legal action is appropriate although other proceedings to deal with the loss may be relevant to both questions.

(3)         The effect of other processes which may eliminate the loss

[28]      A second line of cases interpreting and applying s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Act involves a plaintiff’s pursuit of other processes having the potential to resolve the dispute between the parties and eliminate the plaintiff’s loss.

[29]      This approach to discoverability is consistent with  the rule in administrative law that it is premature for a party to bring a court proceeding to seek a remedy if a statutory dispute resolution process offers an adequate alternative remedy and that process has not fully run its course or been exhausted: see Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 541 (CanLII), 111 O.R. (3d) 561, at paras. 61-70.

[…]

[39]      Non-administrative, alternative processes have also been seen in other cases as having the potential to resolve a dispute, thus rendering a court proceeding inappropriate or unnecessary.

[…]

[45]      Many of the cases dealing with the effect of alternative processes on the appropriateness of a court proceeding have applied the concept of a proceeding being “legally appropriate” articulated by this court in Markel. Markel involved a dispute between sophisticated insurers claiming indemnity under statutory loss transfer rules. The limitations issue that arose concerned whether a legal proceeding was “inappropriate” while settlement discussions between the parties were ongoing and thus, whether a claim was not discovered until these negotiations broke down.

[46]      Recall that, in Markel, the court held that the term “appropriate” in s. 5(1)(a)(iv) means “legally appropriate”. This interpretation avoided entangling courts in the task of having to “assess [the] tone and tenor of communications in search of a clear denial” that would indicate the breakdown of negotiations between the parties. That would permit a plaintiff to delay the discoverability of a claim for “some tactical or other reason” and “inject an unacceptable element of uncertainty into the law of limitation of actions” (at para. 34).

[47]      Similarly, in 407 ETR Concession Company, at para. 47, Laskin J.A. stated that the use of the term “legally appropriate” inMarkel “signified that a plaintiff could not claim it was appropriate to delay the start of the limitation period for tactical reasons, or in circumstances that would later require the court to decide when settlement discussions had become fruitless” (emphasis added).

[48]      These cases instruct that if a plaintiff relies on the exhaustion of some alternative process, such as an administrative or other process, as suspending the discovery of  its claim, the date on which that alternative process has run its course or is exhausted must be reasonably certain or ascertainable by a court.

Accordingly, the motion judge erred in holding that the appellant knew or ought to have known that its proceeding was appropriate as early as April 2010, when it received the CRA’s Notices of Assessment disallowing its tax credits. The proceeding was not appropriate, and the appellant’s underlying claim was not discovered, until May 2011, when the CRA responded to the appellant’s Notice of Objection and advised that it intended to confirm its initial assessments. The motion judge erred by equating knowledge that the respondents had caused a loss with a conclusion that a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy for the loss.

Had the respondents together with the tax lawyer prosecuted the CRA appeal successfully, the appellant’s loss would have been substantially eliminated, and it would have been unnecessary to resort to court proceedings to remedy it. The fact that the appellant would have been unable to recover the fees it paid the tax lawyer, except through litigation, was inconsequential. It is the claim that is discoverable, not the full extent of damages the plaintiff may be able to recover. It would not have been appropriate under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Act for the appellant to commence a proceeding until the respondents ameliorative efforts concluded.

The CRA appeal process had the potential to eliminate the appellant’s loss. As an alternative process to court proceedings, it could have resolved the dispute between the appellant and the respondents. These results would have made a proceeding unnecessary. It would not have been appropriate for the appellant to commence a proceeding until the CRA appeal process was exhausted in May 2011.

The court’s decision in Markel, as interpreted in 407 ETR Concession Company, about the meaning of the concept of a proceeding being “legally appropriate” under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Act supported the appellant’s position. It was not a case where the appellant sought to toll the operation of the limitation period by relying on the continuation of an alternative process whose end date was uncertain or not reasonably ascertainable. It was clear that the end date of the CRA appeal was when the CRA responded to the appellant’s Notice of Objection advising that it intended to confirm the assessments. Thus the motion judge erred in invoking Markel to dismiss the appellant’s claim as time barred.

A last note: the Court of Appeal seems to still be ignoring its decision in Clarke where it held that  the section 5(1)(a)(iv) discovery criterion requires the claimant to have “good reason to believe he or she has a legal claim for damages”.  I don’t think any decision has followed this construction of the provision.

Ontario: discovery doesn’t require knowledge of culpability

Update: The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.

In Dale v. Frank, the Court of Appeal reiterated that discovery of a claim doesn’t require knowledge that the defendant’s act or omission was culpable.  To require a plaintiff to know with certainty that the defendant’s wrongful conduct caused her injuries would require her to come to a legal conclusion as to the defendant’s liability.  This is too a high a bar, and not what s. 5(1) of the Limitations Act requires.

The Appellants also argued that the motion judge erred by failing to consider s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act in her analysis. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument.  The reasons permitted the inference that the motion judge considered this discovery matter:

[9]         We are not persuaded by this submission. Although the motion judge did not undertake a distinct analysis under this provision, her conclusion that each of the appellants knew or ought to have known of the other elements in s. 5(1)(a) was sufficient to infer that she also concluded that the appellants knew or ought to have known that a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy for their losses even before the 2011 press release about Dr. Frank.

Unfortunately, in making this point the Court quoted its decision in Lawless for the principle that discovery requires the prospective plaintiff to know the material facts necessary to make a claim.  Knowledge of the material facts of the claim does not include knowledge of the matter in s. 5(1)(a)(iv)—that a claim is an appropriate remedy to the loss.  It’s disappointing to see the Court of Appeal continuing to rely on Lawless, given the mischief it causes.

 

Ontario: Highways are still subject to limitation periods

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

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

Facts

Some facts are necessary to understand the limitations issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The r. 21 motion

407 raised two issues on the motion.

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

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

The Court of Appeal’s analysis

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

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

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

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

Justice Laskin cited four reasons in support of this conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

Why this decision matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Laskin’s analysis also raises some interesting questions:

  • A civil action became appropriate when 407 had reason to believe that it will not otherwise be paid. Does this reasoning apply to other claims arising out of non-payment of invoices? If I bill you for my services, does my claim become appropriate only when it becomes reasonable for me to believe that you won’t pay me?
  • The fact that 407 could remedy its claim against Day by “another and more effective method” was a consideration in the s. 5(1)(a)(iv) analysis. The more effective remedy was statutory, which I think will limit the relevance of this decision to other s. 5(1)(a)(iv) analyses.  Still, what if another more effective non-statutory remedy is available? For example, what if the statistics indicate that engaging a collection agency to recover my many small debts is more effective than small claims court? Will a legal claim only become appropriate when the collection agency’s efforts fail?

Ontario: The Court of Appeal getting discovery right

In upholding the decision in Chelli-Greco v. Rizk, which we wrote about here, the Court of Appeal described when discovery of a claim occurs:

[3]         Under s. 5 (1)(a) of the Act, a claim is discovered on the date the claimant knew, or ought to have known, the material facts giving rise to the claim, and that a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the claim. The date is determined on a fact-based analysis.

This statement of law is deceptively significant.

Since its decision in Lawless, the Court of Appeal has often described discovery in terms of the old common law test—discovery occurs when the plaintiff reasonably ought to have knowledge of the material facts of her cause of action.  This is problematic because discovery under section 5 of the Limitations Act occurs not just when the claimant has knowledge of the material facts of the cause of action, but, pursuant to section 5(1)(a)(iv), when she knows that a proceeding is an appropriate remedy for her claim.  Using the common law test to determine discovery necessarily removes the section 5(1)(a)(iv) criterion from the analysis.  This is problematic, and I’ve written about it before.

The Court of Appeal’s explicit acknowledgement that discovery requires satisfaction of section 5(1)(a)(iv) is a departure from its jurisprudence that follows Lawless.  This is the decision you should cite when describing discovery under the Limitations Act.

This is the Court’s analysis:

[4]         The issue before the motion judge was when did the respondent know that a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy. The motion judge accepted the respondent’s evidence that her decision to continue treatment with the appellant beyond September 21, 2011 was based on the appellant’s advice to her that “her failed bridge was not his fault and he would endeavour to repair and remediate the problem.”  . Given this finding, we see no error in the motion judge’s conclusion that the respondent’s action was not discovered until after the treatment and the dentist-patient relationship had ended and that her action was not statute barred as a result. See Brown v. Baum, 2016 ONCA 325(CanLII), at para. 18.

Ontario: Court of Appeal upholds Brown v. Baum

The Court of Appeal has upheld Justice Mew’s decision in Brown v. Baum.  I wrote about it here.

Justice Mew found that section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act delayed the commencement of the limitation period for a medical malpractice claim until a proceeding became an appropriate remedy, and that a proceeding did not became an appropriate remedy during the defendant’s good faith efforts to achieve a medical solution to the underlying injury.  The appellants argued that Justice Mew erred by conflating a claim to a legal right with taking legal proceedings to pursue that right.

Justice Feldman rejected this rather strained argument:

[18]      The motion judge’s application of the subsection to the facts on this record was particularly apt: he concluded that because the doctor was continuing to treat his patient to try to fix the problems that arose from the initial surgery, that is, to eliminate her damage, it would not have been appropriate for the patient to sue the doctor then, because he might well have been successful in correcting the complications and improving the outcome of the original surgery. On the evidence of Dr. Brown, the specialist who provided Ms. Brown with a second opinion, by September 2010, Dr. Baum in fact was successful in ameliorating Ms. Brown’s damage.

The appellant also argued that Justice Mew gave the term “appropriate” in section 5(1)(a)(iv) an “evaluative gloss” rather than applying the meaning of “legally appropriate” given by Justice Sharpe in Markel.  Justice Feldman rejected this argument as well:

[19]      Second, the appellant submits that the motion judge gave the term “appropriate” an “evaluative gloss” rather than applying the meaning of “legally appropriate”, contrary to this court’s decision in Markel. Again I do not agree. The motion judge was entitled to conclude on the facts of the case that Ms. Brown did not know that bringing an action against her doctor would be an appropriate means to remedy the injuries and damage she sustained following her breast reduction surgery until June 16 2010, after Dr. Baum performed the last surgery.

[20]      Further, I am satisfied that the test in s. 5(1)(b) is met. A reasonable person in Ms. Brown’s circumstances would not consider it legally appropriate to sue her doctor while he was in the process of correcting his error and hopefully correcting or at least reducing her damage. Where the damages are minimized, the need for an action may be obviated.

Justice Feldman also offered the following observation about the factually specific nature of a section 5(1)(a)(iv) analyses:

[21]      I would also add this observation: the Markel case involved insurance transfer payments and considerations of the appropriateness of possibly delaying the commencement of legal action in order to negotiate a settlement. The considerations for when it is appropriate for a patient to delay suing her doctor when that doctor is continuing to treat her are quite different. I certainly agree with the motion judge that there are many factual issues that will influence the outcome. The fact that a number of recent cases (for example, Tremain v. Muir (Litigation guardian of), 2014 ONSC 185 (CanLII), Chelli-Greco v. Rizk, 2015 ONSC 6963 (CanLII), Novello v. Glick, 2016 ONSC 975 (CanLII), 2016 ONSC 975 (Div. Ct.), and Barry v. Pye, 2014 ONSC 1937 (CanLII)) have considered this very issue with different outcomes is a testament to this approach.

One noteworthy aspect of the decision is that Justice Feldman does not reference Justice Juriansz’s more recent explanation of section 5(1)(a)(iv) from Clarke v. Faust, which we wrote about here: “That provision requires, in my view, a person to have good reason to believe he or she has a legal claim for damages before knowing that commencing a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the injury, loss or damage.”  This may simply reflect that the Court heard the appeal before delivering Clarke.

Ontario: The limitation of continuing oppression claims

In Maurice v. Alles, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a claimant must commence an oppression remedy claim within two years of the discovery of the claim.  Conduct that is in furtherance of, or based on, earlier oppressive conduct is new oppressive conduct that gives rise to a new cause of action, and therefore a new “claim” within the meaning of the Limitations Act, and is subject to its own limitation period.

These are the material paragraphs:

[52]      A party that engages in a series of oppressive acts can always make the argument that it is all part of the same corporate malfeasance and that the limitation period begins to run with the discovery of the first oppressive act. In analyzing that conduct, courts must have regard to the remedial nature of the oppression remedy and the fact that any threatened or actual conduct that is oppressive, or unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly disregards the interests of any complainant can constitute a discrete claim of oppression. The oppression remedy section of the OBCA is drafted in the broadest possible terms to respond to the broadest range of corporate malfeasance.

[53]      Where the motion judge erred was in failing to carefully scrutinize the respondents’ conduct to determine whether there were any discrete acts of oppression within the two-year period prior to the commencement of the cross-application.

This is all very sensible.  Discrete causes of action give rise to discrete “claims” within the meaning of the Limitations Act, and accordingly are subject to discrete limitation periods.

The problem with this decision is that it rejects a comprehensive limitations analysis (eg, whether there is a new “claim” within the meaning of the Limitations Act) in favour of a cause of action analysis.  Justice Hourigan states, in paragraph 48, “As previously mentioned, limitation periods begin when the cause of action arises, not when it is remedied”.

This is plainly wrong.  Limitation periods commence on discovery of a claim, and discovery is completely unconnected to the accrual of a cause of action.  The words “cause of action” do not appear in the Limitations Act, and it often happens that the basic limitation period commences before the claimant’s cause of action accrues.  The basic limitation period commences presumptively on the date of the events giving rise to the claim.  A cause of action, at least in tort, requires actionable conduct and damage; whenever the actionable conduct (the events giving rise to the claim) and the resulting damage occur on different dates, the limitation period commences presumptively before the claimant’s cause of action accrues.

It’s troubling that this aspect of the limitations scheme is consistently misunderstood by the Courts.  The effect is to undermine the scheme’s conceptual integrity, and bad law.

The other interesting aspect of the decision is the following paragraph:

[46]      The appellant had an obligation to commence a claim based on the respondents’ failure to produce the information regarding the share transaction within two years of his discovery that they would not produce it to him.  It is not open to this court, as was suggested by the appellant, to look behind his non-action and excuse it based on the fact that this was a family business or that he had a reasonable expectation that the information would eventually be produced. Such an approach would effectively mark the return of the special circumstances doctrine, which has no application under the current limitations regime.

It seems to me that the fact that a dispute arises within the context of a family business or that the claimant has a reasonable expectation that certain information will be produced is relevant to a section 5(1)(a)(iv) analysis under the Limitations Act.  Consider Justice Juriansz’s description of the section 5(1)(a)(iv) requirement in Clarke v. Faust: “That provision requires, in my view, a person to have good reason to believe he or she has a legal claim for damages before knowing that commencing a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the injury, loss or damage.”  Surly there is a persuasive argument that it may take longer for a person to have a good reason to believe she has a legal claim against a family member than against someone else.

 

 

Ontario: Officers of the court, slow down

That the courts discourage officers of the courts from immediately commencing litigation is a proper factor in a limitations analysis.

In Salewski Inc. v. BDO Canada Ltd., the defendant moved for summary judgment on a limitations defence.  The defendant was retained by a creditor to assign its debtor into bankruptcy.  The court appointed the defendant trustee in bankruptcy.  Friction developed between the defendant and the bankrupt’s interim receiver, the plaintiff.  The plaintiff claimed against the defendant for breach of fiduciary duty.  The defendant pleaded the expiry of the limitation period.

In denying the defendant’s motion, Justice Garson made some helpful observations about the effect of a trustee’s behavior on the commencement of the limitation period:

[77]           In my view, it is inappropriate to start the limitations clock while good faith efforts are ongoing to achieve a remedy.

[78]           Officers of the court should be discouraged from immediately commencing litigation and encouraged to discuss and negotiate differences.

[…]

[80]           The obstacles and delays erected by BDO throughout these proceedings have impeded the exercise of reasonable diligence on the part of DSI to discover the cause of action in this matter.  These obstacles are also sufficient to impact the start of the limitations clock.

[…]

[91]           It would be both unfair and improper for DSI to have been required to commence a legal action any earlier than 2009.  Both parties are officers of the court and should be discouraged from pursuing adversarial proceedings against each other until reasonable efforts to resolve the matter have been addressed.

[92]           To determine otherwise on the facts before me would send the wrong message regarding the duties of a trustee to act fairly and impartially to all creditors, even those opposing its SRD’s.  BDO should not benefit from their prior misconduct.

[93]           This court has and will continue to expect the highest standard of conduct on the part of trustees in the discharge of their duties to the court and the Estate:  see Murphy v. Sally Creek Environs Corporation, supra, at paras. 139, 151 and 155.

[…]

[96]           BDO’s behavior in withholding or not distributing pertinent and relevant information to DSI prevented DSI from discovering the material facts upon which this claim is based.

[97]           Although DSI was suspicious in 2006 and 2007 that BDO had (i) made false statements and omitted relevant facts in an affidavit; (ii) was pursuing a commercially unreasonable course of action; (iii) had made serious allegations about the behavior of DSI, and (iv) was being influenced by Unique, these suspicions were unsupported by material facts.

Ontario: Court of Appeal redefines the s. 5(1)(a)(iv) discovery criterion

In Clarke v. Faust, the Court of Appeal has held that the section 5(1)(a)(iv) discovery criterion requires the claimant to have “good reason to believe he or she has a legal claim for damages”.

Clarke is a solicitor’s negligence action.  The plaintiffs were injured in a motor vehicle accident.  They retained the defendant lawyer to represent them on their accident benefits and tort claim.  He issued a statement of claim on their behalf nine weeks after the second anniversary of the accident.

The plaintiffs then retained a new lawyer.  He told the plaintiffs that their claim was issued after the expiry of the presumptive limitation period, but this wasn’t necessarily fatal to their claim because of discoverability.

The new lawyer passed away and another lawyer took over.  This third lawyer also was also unconcerned by the potential limitations issue.  He took the position that until the plaintiffs obtained medical documentation they couldn’t know whether their injuries met the statutory threshold.  Defence counsel apparently agreed, and the defendants didn’t plead a limitations defence.

Subsequently, the defendants changed their mind and amended their defence to plead a missed limitation period.

The plaintiffs then sued their first lawyer for negligence.  He pleaded a limitations defence and moved for summary judgment.  He argued that the plaintiffs should be presumed to have known of their claim two years after the date of the motor vehicle accident, or in the alternative on the date when their second lawyer put him on notice of the limitations issue.   The plaintiffs argued that they suffered no damage until the defendants in the underlying action pleaded a limitations defence.

The motion judge accepted the defendant’s first argument in a muddled decision that Justice Juriansz criticised fairly, but harshly.  In fairness to the motion judge, all of the theories put forward by the parties were wrong.  I expect that she didn’t have much to work with.

Justice Juriansz found that the case turned on the application of section 5(1)(a)(iv) (“that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it”.  When the defendants in the underlying action delivered their defence, the plaintiffs knew that three lawyers were of the opinion that discoverability applied to their claim and that the defendants had not pleaded a missed limitation period.  Only when the defendants in the underlying action pleaded a missed limitation period did the defendants have any reason to know that commencing a legal proceeding was appropriate.  The claim was accordingly timely.

Here’s what makes this decision noteworthy:

  1. The court defines the knowledge required by section 5(1)(a)(iv): “That provision requires, in my view, a person to have good reason to believe he or she has a legal claim for damages before knowing that commencing a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy the injury, loss or damage.”   Justice Juriansz doesn’t cite any authority for this conclusion, and on first consideration it’s seems a significant departure from the Court’s previous statement in Markel that this criterion requires only knowledge that a proceeding is “legally appropriate”.  There’s a material difference between knowing that a claim is legally appropriate and having good reason to believe there is a legal claim.  How does the need for the claimant to believe she has a legal claim sit with the long-settled principle that a claimant’s failure to appreciate the legal significance of a fact will not postpone the commencement of the limitation period (see for example Holley v. The Northern Trust Company, Canada or more recently Gatti v. Avramidis at para. 123)? It will be interesting to see how courts apply this new definition.
  2. The court didn’t compromise its section 5(1)(a) analysis by applying common law discovery jurisprudence (see for example the decision in Lawless). This is rare.
  3. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs’ action may have been premature because there can be no limitations issue until there is a “claim” as defined by the Limitations Act, and a “claim” requires damage, which almost certainly cannot arise merely be virtue of pleading. Justice Juriansz suggests, correctly I think, that discovery of the claim against the defendant lawyer may not occur until there is a judgment in the underlying action (e.g., dismissing the action on the basis of a limitations defence and causing the plaintiffs damage).The plaintiffs did plead that they suffered damage when the defendants first asserted the limitations defence in the underlying action on the theory that it changed their bargaining position.  Justice Juriansz acknowledged the doubtfulness of this position.  If the lawyer didn’t miss the limitation period in the underlying action, he would not be liable for any damages, and whether he missed the limitation period is unknown until a court determines the issue.