Tag: Ontario Court of Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario: Court of Appeal reviews appropriateness principles

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

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

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

 [17]      Second, this court has observed that two circumstances most often delay the date on which a claim is discovered under this subsection. The first is when the plaintiff relied on the defendant’s superior knowledge and expertise, especially where the defendant took steps to ameliorate the loss. The other situation is where an alternative dispute resolution process offers an adequate remedy, and it has not been completed: Nasr, at para. 50.
 [18]      Third, Sharpe J.A. in Markel Insurance Company of Canada v. ING Insurance Company of Canada, 2012 ONCA 218, 109 O.R. (3d) 652, at para. 34, provided the following guidance concerning the meaning of the term “appropriate”:
This brings me to the question of when it would be “appropriate” to bring a proceeding within the meaning of s. 5 (1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act. Here as well, I fully accept that parties should be discouraged from rushing to litigation or arbitration and encouraged to discuss and negotiate claims. In my view, when s. 5 (1) (a)(iv) states that a claim is “discovered” only when “having a regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it,” the word “appropriate” must mean legally appropriate. To give “appropriate” an evaluative gloss allowing a party to delay the commencement of proceedings for some tactical or other reason beyond two years from the date the claim is fully ripened and requiring the court to assess the tone and tenor of communications in search of a clear denial would, in my opinion, inject an unacceptable element of uncertainty into the law of limitation of actions. [Emphasis in original.]

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario: 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: 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!

Ontario: Court of Appeal says (again) that r. 21 isn’t for limitations defences

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Clark v. Ontario (Attorney General) is another emphatic instruction not to bring motions for judgment on a limitations defence under r. 21:

[40]      The second problem is that the Attorney General seeks to use a r. 21.01(1)(a) motion to assert the Limitations Act defence that it has not pleaded. That rule involves the determination of a question of law raised in a pleading, and it is clear that the application of the Limitations Act is not a matter of law. This point has been made by this court on several occasions. For example, in Beardsley this court stated as follows, at paras. 21-22:

The motion to strike based on the expiry of a limitation period could only be made pursuant to rule 21.01(1)(a), which provides that a party may move for the determination of a question of law “raised by a pleading”. The expiry of a limitation period does not render a cause of action a nullity; rather, it is a defence and must be pleaded.

…

Plaintiffs would be deprived of the opportunity to place a complete factual context before the court if limitation defences were determined, on a routine basis, without being pleaded. Adherence to rules that ensure procedural fairness is an integral component of an appearance of justice. The appearance of justice takes on an even greater significance where claims are made against those who administer the law.

[41]      Despite these remarks, this court stated in Beardsley that it would be “unduly technical” to require a statement of defence to be delivered if “it is plain and obvious from a review of the statement of claim that no additional facts could be asserted that would alter the conclusion that a limitation period had expired”: at para. 21. To the extent that this comment created an exception, it was extremely limited in scope, as the example given makes clear: the expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8, in connection with a claim for property damage only, in circumstances in which the panel noted that the discoverability rule clearly did not apply.

[42]      Although this court has not categorically precluded the use of r. 21.01(1)(a) on limitations matters in subsequent cases, in several cases it has sought to discourage its use. In Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1352 v. Newport Beach Development Inc., 2012 ONCA 850 (CanLII), 113 O.R. (3d) 673, at para. 116, Laskin J.A. said that a defendant could move to strike a claim based on a limitation defence“[o]nly in the rarest of cases” if the defendant has yet to deliver a statement of defence. A fuller explanation was provided in Salewski v. Lalonde, 2017 ONCA 515 (CanLII), 137 O.R. (3d) 762, at para. 42, in which the panel stated that “this court’s comment in Beardsley” had “likely been overtaken by the enactment of the Limitations Act, 2002”. The court in Salewski further limited the effect of the Beardsley comment by stating that it “was never intended to apply to a case that is legally or factually complex”: at para. 42.

[43]      Significantly, the panel in Salewski stated at para. 45 that, because the basic limitation period is now premised on the discoverability rule, the application of which raises mixed questions of law and fact, “[w]e therefore question whether there is now any circumstance in which a limitation issue under the Act can properly be determined under rule 21.01(1)(a) unless pleadings are closed and it is clear the facts are undisputed”.

[44]      The situation contemplated in Salewski – the close of pleadings and the absence of any factual dispute – is very narrow, and this court has continued to discourage the use of r. 21.01(1)(a) motions on limitations matters. In Brozmanova v. Tarshis, 2018 ONCA 523 (CanLII), 81 C.C.L.I. (5th) 1, at para. 19, this court emphasized that “[t]he analysis required under s. 5(1) of the Limitations Actgenerally requires evidence and findings of fact to determine. It does not involve a ‘question of law’ within the meaning of rule 21.01(1)(a).” Justice Brown described reliance on r. 21.01(1)(a) to advance a limitation period defence as “a problematic use of the rule”, one that risks unfairness to a responding plaintiff: at paras. 17, 23.