Ontario Act s. 5

Ontario: when no investigation is a reasonable investigation

 

Galota v. Festival Hall Developments Limited is a noteworthy, well-reasoned limitations decision from the Court of Appeal holding that in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have taken no steps to discover her claim for about five years after her injury.

The plaintiff fell off a dance stage at a bar and broke her arm.  She sued the bar and its insurer defended.  The bar then closed, and the bar’s insurer became insolvent.

After learning of the insurer’s insolvency, the plaintiff sued the bar’s landlord.  She argued that she couldn’t have discovered her claim against the landlord until examination for discovery of the bar’s representative.  It was then that she learned the landlord participated in the design and construction of the dance stage from which she fell.

The bar moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the basis that it was statute-barred by the expiry of the limitation period.  The bar argued that the claim against it was discoverable well before examinations for discovery.

The motion judge agreed with the plaintiff.  He found that she wasn’t put on notice of the potential involvement of the landlord in the design and construction of the dance floor until examinations for discovery, and didn’t show a want of diligence in investigating the landlord’s potential involvement before then.

On appeal, the landlord challenged the motion judge’s finding that the plaintiff exercised sufficient due diligence on the basis that she took no steps at all to investigate her claim until three and a half years after her accident.  The landlord also challenged the trial judge’s call for expert evidence on the standard of care of a solicitor prosecuting an occupier’s liability claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision.  The Court accepted the plaintiff’s position and held that the expert evidence was not material.

Justice Laskin cited the Court’s decision in Fennell for the principle that a plaintiff’s failure to take reasonable steps to investigate a claim is not a stand-alone or independent ground to find a claim out of time.  The reasonable steps a plaintiff ought to have taken to discover her claim is merely a consideration in deciding when a claim is discoverable under section 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act.

The record supported the motion judge’s conclusion that there were no steps the plaintiff reasonably ought to have taken that would have enabled her to discover her claim against the Landlord before her lawyer examined the bar’s representative for discovery:

[24]      In substance, the motion judge found that there were no steps Ms. Galota reasonably ought to have taken that would have enabled her to discover her claim against Festival Hall before her lawyer examined a representative of Republik in November 2009. Some may view the motion judge’s finding to be questionable. But all these cases are very fact-specific. And the motion judge’s finding is a finding of fact, which in my opinion is well supported by the record, and therefore to which we should defer: Burtch, at para. 22; Longo, at para. 38.

Some aspects of Just Laskin’s analysis will be of interest, particularly to the personal injury bar:

  • The plaintiff had no need to pursue the landlord. Her claim against the bar was an insured claim.  The bar’s insurer responded to it and appointed an adjuster to investigate.  Accordingly, the plaintiff “had every reason to believe the insurer would settle her claim or pay any judgment she obtained after a trial […] the need to pursue another party would hardly have seemed reasonable.”  It would have been unreasonable for her to foresee the insurer’s insolvency.
  • While the bar and its insurer had no obligation to notify the plaintiff about the landlord’s potential liability, their failure to do so is a practical consideration in a section 5(1)(b) analysis. The insurer’s adjuster didn’t suggest that the landlord or any other party was potentially liable for her injury.  The bar didn’t allege that the landlord bore any responsibility or take third party proceedings against it.  Prior to examinations for discovery, neither the bar nor the adjuster suggested that there had been renovations to the bar and that the landlord had involvement in them.  The Court adopted Justice Lauwers’s point in Madrid v. Ivanhoe that a naked denial of liability doesn’t trigger a duty on the plaintiff to make further enquiries:

[27]      Second, the insurer’s adjuster never suggested that Festival Hall or any other party was potentially liable for Ms. Galota’s injury. Similarly, in its statement of defence, Republik did not allege Festival Hall bore any responsibility and Republik did not take third party proceedings against Festival Hall or anyone else. Indeed, before the examinations for discovery neither the adjuster nor Republik ever suggested there had been extensive renovations of the nightclub or that Festival Hall was involved in those renovations. I do not suggest either the insurer or Republik had any obligation to notify Ms. Galota about the potential liability of Festival Hall, but their failure to do so is a practical consideration supporting the motion judge’s finding. As Lauwers J. (as he was then) said in Madrid v. Ivanhoe, 2010 ONSC 2235(CanLII), 101 O.R. (3d) 553, at para. 17:

  • If Ivanhoe’s insurance adjuster had advised the plaintiff that liability was being denied because another party was liable, then the plaintiff’s duty to make further inquiries would have been triggered. But, on the actual facts of this case, a naked denial of liability should not trigger a duty on the plaintiff to make further inquiries.
  • On the date of her injury, the plaintiff couldn’t have known that the landlord was an “occupier” of the bar.  Perhaps the plaintiff’s lawyer should have obtained a title search early in the litigation, but this wouldn’t have determined whether the landlord was an occupier.  This would depend on the terms of its lease with the bar. The lease was not a public document, and the plaintiff had no automatic ability to require the landlord to produce it before litigation. Even if she had obtained the lease earlier in the litigation, she could only have discovered her claim against the landlord when she applied the lease to the facts that the landlord extensively renovated the bar, and the renovations might have breached the Building Code.  The plaintiff only learned of these facts after examinations for discovery.
  • Justice Laskin found that expert evidence is not needed to decide when a claim is discoverable under section 5(1)(b).

Curiously, Justice Laskin described the test in section 5(1)(b) as objective.  This is a departure from the Court’s more accurate description of it as “modified-objective” in Ridel and Ferrara. The “reasonable person” component of the test is modified by the subjective component of “with the abilities and in the circumstances of the claimant.”  Presumably, this was just inadvertence.

The Court’s decision also includes this potentially helpful summary of certain principles of discovery under section 5:

[15]      Three points about these provisions are relevant to the submissions on appeal:

  • Section 5(1)(b) codifies the common law rule of discoverability. If s. 5(1)(b) applies, the two year limitation period will run from a date later than the date the plaintiff was injured.
  • Under s. 5(1)(b), a plaintiff “first ought to have known” of the claim when the plaintiff has enough evidence or information to support an allegation of negligence, including facts about an act or omission that may give rise to a cause of action against a possible tortfeasor: Zapfe v. Barns (2003), 2003 CanLII 52159 (ON CA), 66 O.R. (3d) 397 (C.A.), at paras. 32-33; Burtch v. Barnes Estate (2006), 2006 CanLII 12955 (ON CA), 80 O.R. (3d) 365, at para. 24. The plaintiff cannot delay the start of the limitation period until he or she knows with certainty that a defendant’s act or omission caused the injury or damage: Longo v. MacLaren Art Centre Inc., 2014 ONCA 526 (CanLII),323 O.A.C. 246, at para.
  • The rebuttable presumption in s. 5(2) means that a plaintiff has the onus of showing that the rule of discoverability in s. 5(1)(b) applies: Fennell v. Deol, 2016 ONCA 249(CanLII), at para. 26

 

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: Section 5 of the Limitations Act always applies

 

The decision in Najafi v. Shapiro provides a teachable moment.  The decision implies that the precondition for the application of section 5 of the Limitations Act is the plaintiff raising discoverability:

[35]        The moving defendants rely upon Section 4 and Section 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 as the substantive law for the limitation defence they ask the court to apply to dismiss the 2015 action as against them. Section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, reads as follows […]

[36]        On facts where discoverability is raised as an issue, Section 5 is applicable […]

This is wrong.  There’s no precondition to the application of section 5, which is a necessary part of a limitations analysis.  Section 4 links the commencement of the basic limitation period to the discovery of a claim.  Section 5 provides when discovery of a claim occurs.  Accordingly, it’s impossible to determine when a limitation period commences without applying section 5.

Here’s the language of section 4 and 5(1)-(2):

Basic limitation period

4. Unless this Act provides otherwise, a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was discovered.  2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 4.

Discovery

5. (1) A claim is discovered on the earlier of,

(a) the day on which the person with the claim first knew,

(i) that the injury, loss or damage had occurred,

(ii) that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission,

(iii) that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is made, and

(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; and

(b) the day on which a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the person with the claim first ought to have known of the matters referred to in clause (a).  2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 5 (1).

Presumption

(2) A person with a claim shall be presumed to have known of the matters referred to in clause (1) (a) on the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place, unless the contrary is proved.  2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 5 (2).

 

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 discovery of solicitor’s negligence claims

Lausen v. Silverman is a well-reasoned decision from the Court of Appeal considering the discovery of a solicitor’s negligence claim.

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident.  She consulted the defendant solicitor, who commenced an action on her behalf against the other driver for damages.  At mediation, the plaintiff followed her solicitor’s advice and settled the tort claim.

The plaintiff continued to suffer from her injuries and asked her solicitor to assist in obtaining statutory accident benefits.  The solicitor asked for a further monetary retainer and their relationship ended.  The plaintiff consulted another a lawyer, and he obtained an psychiatric opinion that the plaintiff’s injuries met the “catastrophic” threshold under the accident benefits regulation.

Almost six years after the settlement of her tort claim, the plaintiff commenced an action against her first solicitor for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty for advising her to accept an improvidently low settlement of the tort claim.

The defendant solicitor moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was statute-barred.  The motion judge framed the issue as whether the plaintiff’s claim was discoverable within two years of issuing her statement of claim.  She found that the plaintiff ought to have had the necessary knowledge at the time of the settlement to bring her claim.

Justice Feldman granted the plaintiff’s appeal.  The motion judge erred in her interpretation and application of section 5(1) of the Limitations Act.  The plaintiff did not have knowledge that she had a claim against the defendant until she learned about it from her current counsel based on the medical opinion he obtained.  The opinion was the first indication that the plaintiff’s injuries warranted more compensation than she had received from the settlement.

Whatever facts the plaintiff knew at the time of the settlement, the defendant also knew them, and they did not cause the defendant to consider that the plaintiff might have had a claim against her.  If the defendant considered that she had settled the tort action improvidently, the Rules of Professional Conduct obliged her to advise the plaintiff of the potential error and to notify LawPro.  Advice from a lawyer of an error or omission will in the normal course cause the client to discover the resulting claim against the lawyer, but there was no such advice in this instance.

Meanwhile, it was the plaintiff’s uncontradicted evidence that although she felt that the settlement was unfair after concluding it, she did not know that it was improvident or that she had a claim against her former lawyer until so advised by her new lawyer based on the expert report.  Justice Feldman found that this evidence rebutted the section 5(2) presumption that the plaintiff discovered her claim on the date of the events giving rise to it.

Following the Court of Appeal decision in Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Justice Feldman found that a reasonable a person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the plaintiff would not have realized that she had a claim against the defendants when no one, including the defendant, indicated to her that the settlement might have been improvident.

Ontario: the Court of Appeal on due diligence and discoverability

In Fennell v. Deol, the Court of Appeal clarified the role due diligence plays in the discovery analysis.  It’s a fact that informs the analysis, but not a separate and independent reason for dismissing a plaintiff’s claim as statute-barred.

Fennell was in a motor vehicle accident with the defendants.  He claimed against the defendant Shergill, and subsequently amended the statement of claim to add the defendant Deol.  Shergill served a statement of defence and crossclaim against Deol.  Deol moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim on the basis of an expired limitation period.

Fennell argued that he discovered his claim when he received a medical report and learned that he met the Insurance Act threshold.  Justice Akhtar noted that Fennell’s discovery testimony indicated awareness of the seriousness of his injuries before receiving the report.  For Fennell to rely on discoverability to delay the commencement of the limitation period, Justice Akhtar held that he had to show due diligence in discovering his claim.  Fennell did not show sufficient due diligence, and had he acted diligently, he would have discovered his claim when he commenced his action against Shergill.  Justice Akhtar dismissed Fennell’s claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed Fennell’s appeal.  Justice Akhtar made a counting error (which is very easy for lawyers to do when it comes to limitations, and here I speak from ample experience).  If Fennell ought to have discovered his claim against Deol when he sued Shergill, the claim against Deol was in fact timely.

What makes Justice van Rensburg’s decision interesting is her discussion of Justice Akhtar’s error in focussing primarily on whether Fennell exercised due diligence, and in concluding that Fennel bore the onus to show due diligence to rebut the presumption that the limitation period ran from the date of the accident  (the statutory presumption in s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act).  To overcome the presumption, Fennell needed to prove only that he couldn’t reasonably have discovered that he met the statutory threshold on the date of the accident (s. 5(1)(b)), not that he exercised due diligence.

The fact that it wasn’t possible for Fennell to discover that he met the threshold on the date of the accident was enough to rebut the presumption.

Due diligence is the core of an analysis when determining whether to add a defendant to an action after the expiry of the presumptive limitation period (and then the threshold is low), but it is neither a standalone duty nor determinative of the section 5 discovery analysis:

[18]      While due diligence is a factor that informs the analysis of when a claim ought to have reasonably been discovered, lack of due diligence is not a separate and independent reason for dismissing a plaintiff’s claim as statute-barred.

[…]

[23]      Due diligence is not referred to in the Limitations Act, 2002. It is, however, a principle that underlies and informs limitation periods, through s. 5(1)(b). As Hourigan J.A. noted in Longo v. MacLaren Art Centre Inc., 2014 ONCA 526 (CanLII), 323 O.A.C. 246, at para. 42, a plaintiff is required to act with due diligence in determining if he has a claim, and a limitation period is not tolled while a plaintiff sits idle and takes no steps to investigate the matters referred to in s. 5(1)(a).

[24]      Due diligence is part of the evaluation of s. 5(1)(b). In deciding when a person in the plaintiff’s circumstances and with his abilities ought reasonably to have discovered the elements of the claim, it is relevant to consider what reasonable steps the plaintiff ought to have taken. Again, whether a party acts with due diligence is a relevant consideration, but it is not a separate basis for determining whether a limitation period has expired.

Ontario: don’t skip the argument

Hawthorne v. Markham Stouffville Hospital is a reminder from the Court of Appeal that a successful discovery argument requires both evidence and an explanation of the evidence’s connection to discovery of the claim.  It seems that filing documents and saying nothing about them won’t carry the day.

Hawthorne was a medical malpractice action.  The respondents moved to dismiss the appellant’s claim as barred by the expiry of the limitation period.  Their position was that the appellant ought to have discovered her claim when she obtained medical records from the respondent.

The motion judge granted summary judgment on the basis that the appellant did not rebut the Limitations Act‘s section 5(2) presumption that she discovered her claim on the date of the act or omission giving rise to it.  The appellant adduced no evidence relating to discoverability to rebut the statutory presumption.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the motion judge erred by failing to give effect to evidence that was available in the motion record, but not referred to in argument.

The Court of Appeal said no:

[8]         We do not give effect to this argument. The failure of the appellants to respond to the summary judgment motion with evidence to rebut the presumption in s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002 is fatal. Pleadings are not evidence. The appellants could not rest on the pleading of a timely discovery date in their third action, when confronted by a motion for summary dismissal based on the limitations argument.

[9]         The two receipts that were in the record (as part of the respondents’ materials), even if drawn to the attention of the motion judge, without any further evidence or explanation, could not have affected the result. Even if it might be reasonable to conclude that the appellants received medical records on the dates shown in the receipts for payment, this was not sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption. The receipts alone do not advance the appellants’ discoverability argument, in the absence of any explanation by Ms. Hawthorne linking what was in the records to the discovery of her claim.

Ontario: There’s no special discovery test for professional malpractice

In March, I wrote approvingly of Justice Stinson’s discovery analysis in Brown v. Wahl.  The Court of Appeal recently upheld the decision.

The Court of Appeal’s decision is noteworthy for two reasons. First, the Court rejected the appellant’s argument that Lawless v. Anderson created a four-part test for discoverability in respect of professional malpractice claims:

[3]         Lawless was a medical malpractice case.  In describing when the plaintiff knew all the material facts required to discover her claim against the defendant, this court stated, at para. 30:

It was clear to the appellant at this point that she had suffered more than an unfortunate and unsatisfactory outcome.  She was aware of what was wrong, why it was wrong, what would have to be done to correct it and who was responsible.  In other words, the appellant had all of the material facts necessary to determine that she had prima facie grounds for inferring that the respondent had been negligent.

[4]         The appellant submits that, in the above-quoted passage, the Lawless court established a four-part test for determining when a prospective plaintiff may be said to have known the material facts necessary for bringing a negligence claim against a medical practitioner in a cosmetic surgery action.  This test establishes, according to the appellant, that such a claim is discovered by the prospective plaintiff only when he or she knows: i) of the harm alleged; ii) why it was wrong; iii) what action is required to correct the wrong; and iv) who was responsible.

[5]         Based on this suggested four-part test, the appellant argues that the motion judge erred by failing to properly or adequately analyze the evidence and apply it to the questions of when the appellant was positioned to determine “why” her dental treatment by the respondents was “wrong” and “what would have to be done to correct it”.

[6]         We reject this argument.

[7]         First, Lawless does not create a new four-part test for discoverability in respect of professional malpractice claims.  To the contrary, Lawless confirms, at para. 30, that the test for discoverability is when a prospective plaintiff “had all of the material facts necessary to determine that she had prima facie grounds for inferring that the respondent had been negligent”.  The Lawlesscourt’s reference, immediately preceding this comment, to the four factors relied on by the appellant reflects the application of this test to the evidence before the court in Lawless.

This was the correct response to a dubious argument.  Whatever the Ontario limitations regime may need, it’s not new discovery tests for specific claims.

Second, the Court followed its description of discoverability in Lawless.  This is problematic because it’s a description of the common law discoverability test, rather than the section 5 test in the Limitations Act.  I describe the mischief resulting from this confusion here.

Ontario: discovery applies to the limitation period for crossclaims

Justice Leach’s decision in Demide v. Attorney General of Canada et al. holds that the limitation period applicable to claims for contribution and indemnity is subject to discoverability.  This departs from the jurisprudence, which generally considers this to be a fixed two-year limitation period beginning on the date of service of the plaintiff’s claim.

Section 18(1) of the Limitations Act provides when this limitation period begins:

(1) For the purposes of subsection 5 (2) and section 15, in the case of a claim by one alleged wrongdoer against another for contribution and indemnity, the day on which the first alleged wrongdoer was served with the claim in respect of which contribution and indemnity is sought shall be deemed to be the day the act or omission on which that alleged wrongdoer’s claim is based took place.

Prior to this decision, I would have said that it was settled that this provision provides a two year limitation period for bringing crossclaims, running from deemed discovery on the date of the claim’s service, and not subject to extension by application of the section 5 discovery provisions.   As Justice Leach notes, this is the position of many of his colleagues on the Superior Court, including Justice Perell who articulated it eloquently in Miaskowski v. Persaud:

[81]           Pursuant to s. 18 of the Limitations Act, a claim for contribution and indemnity is deemed to be discovered on the date upon which the “first alleged wrongdoer was served with the claim in respect of which contribution and indemnity is sought,” and with this deeming provision, the limitation period expires two years after the date on which the claim is served.

Justice Perell’s analysis in Miaskowski turned on the language of section 18.  The word “deemed” is a declarative legal concept that is a “firmer or more certain assertion of discovery” than the rebuttable presumption of discovery contained within section 5(2).  Further, section 18 does not contain the moderating language “unless the contrary is proved” present in section 5(2), i.e. a person discovers a claim on the date of the act or omission unless she proves the contrary.

Justice Leach disagreed.  His reasoning also starts with the language of section 18.  In his view, approaching section 18 as a self-contained deeming provision ignores its opening words.  Those words provide expressly that the provision was enacted for “the purposes of subsection 5(2) and 15”, that is, to inform and dictate the meaning of those subsections.  When applying section 5(2) to claims for contribution and indemnity, section 18(1) dictates that the presumed commencement date for the two year limitation is the date of service of the claim for which contribution and indemnity is sought.  The defendant can rebut this presumption by proving the contary.

The reference to section 15, the ultimate limitation period, reinforces this conclusion.  If section 18 is an absolute two-year limitation period beginning on a fixed date, section 15 could have no application.  Only if the section 5 discovery provisions can delay the beginning of the limitation period is there need for an ultimate limitation period.

This is a very compelling analysis, and I’m persuaded that it’s correct even if it’s currently an outlier–the Court continues to deliver decisions like this one (see paragraph 58) based on section 18 being a fixed limitation period.  It will be interesting to see how the Court of Appeal determines the issue should it come before it.  I don’t expect that it will; it’s surely the rare case where a defendant through reasonable diligence can’t discover a crossclaim within two years of service of the plaintiff’s claim.

Should you be interested, these are the relevant paragraphs from Justice Leach’s decision:

 

[87]           […]  With great respect, I disagree with that view, as it seems to approach section 18 as if it were a self-contained deeming provision, and ignores the opening words of s.18(1).  In my opinion, those words make it clear that section 18 was not intended to operate as a “stand alone” limitation period, with independent application, or a provision to be viewed and read separately and in contrast to s.5(2).  Rather, section 18 expressly was enacted “For the purposes of subsection 5(2) and 15”, [emphasis added]; i.e., to inform and dictate the meaning to be given to certain concepts referred to in ss.5(2) and 15, when applying those sections.  In particular, when applying s.5(2) to claims for contribution and indemnity, s.18(1) dictates that the “day [of] the act or omission” referred to in s.5(2) shall be the day on which the first alleged wrongdoer was served with the claim in respect of which contribution and indemnity is sought.  Subsection 18(1) thereby dictates the relevant presumed starting point for the basic two year limitation period, in relation to the operation of s.5(2); a presumption that is still capable of being rebutted by proof to the contrary, pursuant to the provisions of s.5(2).  In particular, I see nothing in the language of s.18(1) that displaces or alters the natural meaning to be given to the other language of s.5(2).  Section 18 itself does not have or require language of presumption or proof to the contrary, in relation to operation of the basic limitation period, but this is because its inclusion in section 18 would have been unnecessary and redundant, given that such wording already is found in s.5(2), with which it is expressly and inextricably linked.  In my opinion, reading s.18(1) in conjunction with s.5(2), as the legislation intended, and substituting into s.5(2) only those concepts whose substitution is dictated by s.18(1), one finds that s.5(2) effectively reads as follows in relation to claims for contribution and indemnity:  “An alleged wrongdoer with a claim against another alleged wrongdoer for contribution and indemnity shall be presumed to have known of the matters referred to in clause 5(1)(a) on the day on which the first alleged wrongdoer was served with the claim in respect of which contribution and indemnity is sought,unless the contrary is proved.”  [Emphasis added.]   The presumption applicable to such claims is therefore rebuttable, not conclusive.

 

Moreover, that conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the opening words of s.18(1) refer not only to s.5(2) but also to section 15; i.e., the “ultimate limitation period” of 15 years.  As with s.5(2), s.18(1) informs and dictates the meaning to be given to certain concepts referred to in section 15.  In particular, s.18(1) informs the meaning to be given to “the day on which the act or omission on which the claims is based took place”, for the purposes of s.15(2).  In my opinion, reading s.15(2) in conjunction with s.18(1), as the legislation intended, and substituting into s.15(2) only those concepts whose substitution is dictated by s.18(1), one finds that s.15(2) effectively reads as follows, in relation to claims for contribution and indemnity:  “No proceeding shall be commenced in respect of any claim for contribution and indemnity after the 15th anniversary of the day on which the first alleged wrongdoer was served with the claim in respect of which contribution and indemnity is sought”.   I fail to understand how s.18(1) can be interpreted as creating a conclusive and “absolute” two year limitation period for contribution and indemnity claims, running from the date on which the first alleged wrongdoer was served with the underlying claim in respect of which contribution and indemnity is sought, when the legislature clearly contemplated the possibility that the operation of section 15 might be required to put an end to such possible claims fifteen years after service of the claim in respect of which contribution and indemnity is sought.  In my opinion, the obvious conclusion is that the legislature thought section 15 might be needed in relation to claims for contribution and indemnity for the same reason section 15 might be needed in relation to other claims; i.e., because operation of the applicable limitation period might be extended beyond the contemplated two year basic limitation period by considerations of discoverability.

 

[88]         Second, I cannot and do not disagree with Justice Perell’s view that an absolute two year limitation period for contribution and indemnity, (with no allowance whatsoever for possible lack of discoverability, even when capable of proof), would provide certainty and efficiency, which was definitely one of the policies underlying the reforms introduced in the Limitations Act, 2002, supra.   However, one could say that in relation to making any limitation period absolute.  As Justice Sharpe emphasized in Canaccord Capital Corp. v. Roscoe, supra, at paragraph 17, the overall goal of the legislation was the creation of a clear and comprehensive scheme for addressing limitation issues that would balance a defendant’s need for certainty with the plaintiff’s right to sue.  A review of the legislation suggests that, with indicated exceptions, the Legislature generally tried to strike that balance by imposition of a presumptive two year limitation period, capable of extension by demonstrable lack of discovery, (proof of which was the obligation of the claimant).  Although the legislature clearly felt that claims for contribution and indemnity warranted a measure of exceptional treatment, to encourage resolution of all claims arising from the wrong at the same time, it seems to me that the approach chosen by the legislature in that regard was the introduction of a modified presumption; i.e., one that moved the presumed starting date of the basic two year limitation period forward considerably, (from the much later starting dates permitted under the previous legislation), to the date on which the party seeking contribution and indemnity was served with the claim in respect of which contribution and indemnity is sought.  Such a party, who fails to approach the possibility of contribution and indemnity claims with due diligence during the ensuing presumptive two year limitation period, from that much earlier date, does so at that party’s considerable peril.  However, I see nothing in the legislation that suggests the legislature intended to go an extra step; i.e., by absolutely precluding any possibility whatsoever of an extension of time for a party capable of proving that a contemplated claim for contribution and indemnity was indeed incapable of being discovered, even with reasonable due diligence, within two years of the party being served with a statement of claim.  As emphasized by our Court of Appeal in Pepper v. Zellers Inc., 2006 CanLII 42355 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 5042 (C.A.), the discoverability principle ensures that a person “is not unjustly precluded from litigation before he or she has the information to commence an action provided that the person can demonstrate he or she exercised reasonable or due diligence to discover the information”.  In my view, the court should be reluctant to adopt a legislative interpretation that effectively permits the possibility of such an injustice, unless that is the outcome clearly dictated by the legislation.   As demonstrated by the ultimate limitation period provisions of section 15, the legislature has the ability to make such an intention quite clear, when it has that intention.

 

[89]         Third, I similarly do not disagree with Justice Perell’s view that it would be a rare case that a defendant, exercising due diligence within two years of being served with a claim, would not know the parties against whom to claim contribution and indemnity.  However, rarity is not impossibility, and in my view, the rarity of such a possibility underscores the somewhat modest concession to fairness, (from a claimant’s point of view), of the Legislature making the limitation period for contribution and indemnity claims subject to discoverability.

Update: Miaskowski was appealed, but on unrelated issues.

Ontario: when it comes to a car accident, you can rely on the cops

In regards of discovering a claim for the purpose of the limitation period, a plaintiff can rely on the contents of a motor vehicle accident report prepared by the police at the scene of the accident.

In Lingard v. Milne-McIsaac, the plaintiff acted reasonably by relying on a statement in such a report that the defendant was insured.  It was reasonable for the plaintiff to assume that the police officer who completed the report asked the defendant for proof of insurance.  The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had no reason to treat insurance coverage as a live issue until he became aware that the defendant may not have coverage.