Discovery

Ontario: Highways are still subject to limitation periods

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

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

Facts

Some facts are necessary to understand the limitations issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The r. 21 motion

407 raised two issues on the motion.

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

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

The Court of Appeal’s analysis

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

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

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

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

Justice Laskin cited four reasons in support of this conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

Why this decision matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Laskin’s analysis also raises some interesting questions:

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

Ontario: If you sue, you’ve discovered your claim

Limitations issues have a way of encouraging creative but hopeless arguments.

Take for example Richards v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.  The plaintiff argued that the first clear and unequivocal denial of his benefits claim was contained in the defendant insurer’s statement of defence.  Justice Bale had none of this:

[19]           As previously noted, the plaintiff argued that the first clear and unequivocal denial of his claim was contained in Sun Life’s statement of defence. Assuming this to be the case, “clear and unequivocal denial” cannot be the applicable test, since the plaintiff would then have commenced his action prior to discovering his claim, a logically inconsistent result.

By commencing a proceeding in respect of a claim, a claimant necessarily acknowledges discovery of the claim.  It is, as Justice Bale put it, logically fraught to both assert a claim and an argument that you have yet to discover it.

Justice Bale’s decision also contains a helpful discussion of rolling limitation periods:

[25]           The plaintiff argues that a rolling limitation period applies, and that the plaintiff is only barred from claiming the disability benefits that would have been payable more than two years before the action was commenced. I disagree.

[26]           A rolling limitation period may apply to claims for periodic payments, in cases where the issue is whether certain payments to which the plaintiff is entitled have been made (e.g. payments of rent), as opposed to cases where the issue is whether the plaintiff was entitled to the periodic payments in the first place. In the former type of case, the material facts will have arisen on a periodic basis, and it will not be unfair to require a defendant to litigate those facts during the applicable limitation period following the date upon which an individual payment became due. However, in the latter type of case, the material facts will have arisen at the time that the plaintiff alleges he or she first became entitled to periodic payments, and it would be unfair to require the defendant to litigate those facts, for a potentially unlimited period of time.

[27]           In the present case, the issue is whether the plaintiff was entitled to disability benefits, at the time of his application to Sun Life, and the concept of a rolling limitation period does not apply.

Ontario: MVA litigation, lawyer’s letters, and the threshold

A lawyer’s letter stating that her plaintiff client has sustained permanent injuries is not, in the context of motor vehicle accident litigation, determinative of whether the plaintiff has discovered her claim within the meaning of the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff in Schaefer v. Ayeneababa suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident.  The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred by an expired limitation period.

The limitation period for a claim of permanent injury and impairment under section 276.5(5) of the Insurance Act doesn’t run until there’s a sufficient body evidence:

[4]              Both sides agree, as do I, that the limitations issue that is before me can be summarily adjudicated. Both sides also agree with the proposition set out in Ioannidis[2] – that in claims of permanent injury and impairment under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act,[3] the court should grant “a degree of latitude to the plaintiff before declaring that the limitation period has begun to run.” A limitation period should not begin to run with regard to a serious and permanent impairment claim:

… until there is a sufficient body of evidence  available to be placed before a judge that, in counsel’s opinion, has a reasonable chance of persuading a judge on a balance of probabilities that the injury qualifies [as a serious permanent impairment].When such a body of material has been accumulated then and only then should the limitation begin to run.[4]

The defendant took the position that the plaintiff’s lawyer, by words and actions, “made clear to the insurer that the plaintiff’s injuries were permanent and that the limitation period would expire two years after the accident”.  The defendant relied on a letter from the lawyer to the insurer:

[11]         The defendant, however, points to a letter dated May 24, 2011 from the plaintiff’s lawyer to the insurer. The lawyer advises the insurer that as a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck, shoulders, back and hips and that the physical and psychological symptoms from these injuries (such as dizziness, headaches and acute depression) “are continuing up to the present.” The lawyer also notes that the limitation date is “fast approaching” and attaches a draft statement of claim. The draft statement of claim specifically pleads “permanent and serious impairments.” The lawyer then tries to file the claim by mail but the mailed-in claim is rejected by the court. The action is properly commenced on December 2, 2011.

The defendant argued that the letter was essentially an acknowledgement that the plaintiff’s injuries were permanent on the date of the accident.

Justice Belobaba correctly rejected this argument:

[12]         The defendant says that by these words and actions the plaintiff’s lawyer in essence acknowledged that his client’s injuries were indeed permanent and that he only had until June 24, 2011 (two years after the accident) to commence the action.

[13]         I do not agree. The fact that the plaintiff’s injuries were described as “continuing” is not, in and of itself, an acknowledgement of permanency. Nor is the fact that the lawyer attaches a draft statement of claim that pleads “permanent and serious impairments.” This claim is made in almost every motor vehicle accident that results in significant injury. And, in any event, pleadings are not evidence.

[14]          The fact that the lawyer noted in his letter that the two-year limitation period is “fast approaching” says as much about his desire to file the claim within the presumptive two-year period just to be on the safe side, as it does about an admission that his client knew she sustained permanent soft-tissue injuries at the date of the accident – which is generally an impossibility and is here rebutted by the medical documentation that the lawyer reviewed.

[15]         In his affidavit, the lawyer lists the various clinical and psychological reports that he had reviewed (none of which describe the impairments as permanent) and explains that when he sent the May 24, 2011 letter to the insurer, he “did not have the necessary medical reports and records to prove [that the impairments were permanent].” It was only after requesting a medical opinion from Dr. Sequeira on October 20, 2011 and receiving the doctor’s report a month later that he “formed the opinion that the plaintiff had sustained an injury that met the requirements of s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.” The lawyer commenced the action less than a month later on December 2, 2011.

Ontario: Ignorance is not bliss

In Unegbu v. WFG Securities of Canada, the Court of Appeal reminds us that ignorance of the law won’t stop the limitation period from running:

[4]         […] It is well-established that a lack of appreciation of the legal significance of the facts grounding a claim does not stop the limitation from running: Nicholas v. McCarthy Tetrault, [2008] O.J. No. 4258 at para. 27, aff’d 2009 ONCA 692 (CanLII).

 

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: interaction of the Insurance Act and Limitations Act

Justice Akhtar’s decision in Sorita v. TTC provides a helpful summary of the interaction between the Limitations Act and the statutory threshold in s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act:

[26]      As noted earlier, Ontario’s restriction on motor vehicle accident claims is contained in s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act, which provides:

(5) Despite any other Act and subject to subsection (6), the owner of an automobile, the occupants of an automobile and any person present at the incident are not liable in an action in Ontario for damages for non-pecuniary loss, including damages for non-pecuniary loss under clause 61(2)(e) of the Family Law Act, from bodily injury or death arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the automobile, unless as a result of the use or operation of the automobile the injured person has died or has sustained,

(a) permanent serious disfigurement; or

(b) permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

 [27]      Ontario’s no-fault insurance scheme means that, in the Insurance Act context, the limitation clock begins to run when the plaintiff becomes aware that their injuries constitute “permanent serious impairment”. To otherwise commence an action is futile, as no evidence would have been available of a qualifying injury: Peixeiro v. Haberman, 1997 CanLII 325 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549, at para. 32. Additionally, the plaintiff in a motor vehicle claim is not required to commence an action before they know that they have a “substantial chance” of success: Everding v. Skrijel, 2010 ONCA 437 (CanLII), 100 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 11. The inquiry to be undertaken is “whether the prospective plaintiff knows enough facts on which to base an allegation of negligence against the defendant”: Lawless v. Anderson, 2011 ONCA 102 (CanLII), at para. 23.

Readers of Under The Limit will know not to rely on Lawless v. Anderson when considering the commencement of the limitation period.  Contrary to the above, the inquiry is not when the claimant knows enough facts on which to base an allegation of negligence, but when the claimant ought to have knowledge of the section 5 discovery criteria, including that a proceeding is an appropriate remedy.  It always bears repeating: the words “cause of action” do not appear in the Limitations Act.

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: modified objective discovery

Justice Parfett’s decision in Fernandes v. Goveas is a textbook example of applying the modified objective test in a discovery analysis.

Section 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act contains the test.  This provision asks when a reasonable person (the objective component) with the abilities and in the circumstances of the claimant (the modifying subjective component) first ought to have known of the discovery criteria in section 5(1)(a).

The facts in Fernandes were unusually sordid.  The plaintiff sued her sister for unpaid wages and damages for wrongful dismissal, leading Justice Parfett to observe “This case is a lesson in why family should not always be treated ‘like family’.  The Plaintiff in this case was misled, overworked and underpaid by her family.”

This is how Justice Parfett applied the test:

[16]           A reasonable person is defined at s. 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act as someone ‘with the abilities and in the circumstances of the person with the claim’.  In this case, that means someone who

  •                  Was not born in Canada;
  •                  Spoke only minimal English;
  •                  Was living exclusively in the home of her employers and had little social interaction outside the family;
  •                  Trusted her employers implicitly given they were family;
  •                  Had a moderate education;
  •                  Was diagnosed as autistic and noted as having problems with speech and social interactions.

[…]

[21]           In my view […The Plaintiff’s] language, psychological and social limitations created a situation where the Plaintiff was unable to exercise due diligence in order to discover the state of her financial affairs until after she left the Defendant’s employ.