Common law principles

Ontario: common law discovery and s. 4 of the RPLA

Khan v. Taji confirms that common law discovery applies to the limitation period in s. 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act.  It provides a good overview of the issue:

[72]           The defendants argue that the discoverability principle in s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, has no application to s. 4 of the RPLA. They argue that the discoverability principle is a statutory construct, and does not apply unless expressly stated in the statute. In the absence of an express statement, the right to bring an action for the recovery of land first accrues the moment the trust is established, not on the date that a breach of trust is discovered.

[73]           There is no question that the application of the discoverability rule is a question of statutory interpretation, but the analysis is not as simple as that proposed by the defendants.  In Pexeiro v. Haberman, 1997 CanLII 325 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the question of whether the discoverability rule applied to all limitation provisions or whether its application depended upon the actual wording of the statutory limitation. Major J. adopted the following statement from the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Fehr v. Jacob , at para. 37:

[T]he judge-made discoverability rule is nothing more than a rule of construction. Whenever a statute requires an action to be commenced within a specified time from the happening of a specific event, the statutory language must be construed. When time runs from “the accrual of the cause of action” or from some other event which can be construed as occurring only when the injured party has knowledge of the injury sustained, the judge-made discoverability rule applies. But, when time runs from an event which clearly occurs without regard to the injured party’s knowledge, the judge-made discoverability rule may not extend the period the legislature has prescribed. (Emphasis added)

[74]           In McCracken v. Kossar, 2007 CanLII 4875 (ON SC), Shaw J. concluded that the language of s. 4(1) of the RPLA did nor preclude the application of the discoverability rule, at para. 54:

Ms. Kossar submits that the discoverability principle does not apply to s. 4(1) of the Real Property Limitations Act. She quotes in support of her submission the words in s. 4(1), “… when the right to bring such action first accrued.” However, Fehr v. Jacob, cited with approval by Major J. in Pexeiro, refers to very similar language as leading to the possible application of the discoverability rule.

[75]           In any event, I note that s. 28 of the RPLA does expressly provide for a discoverability rule in cases of concealed fraud. Section 28 provides:

28.  In every case of a concealed fraud, the right of a person to bring an action for the recovery of any land or rent of which the person or any person through whom that person claims may have been deprived by the fraud shall be deemed to have first accrued at and not before the time at which the fraud was or with reasonable diligence might have been first known or discovered.

[76]           In the present case, the plaintiff has pleaded fraud with respect to the transfers of both properties.

Ontario: common law discovery doesn’t apply to s. 57 of the RTA

In Sharma v. Sandhu, the Divisional Court held that the common law discovery rule has no application to s. 57 of the Residential Tenancies Act:

[19]           I am also not persuaded that the common law principle of discoverability has any application when considering s. 57 of the RTA.

[20]           At para. 37 of Peixeiro v. Haberman 1997 CanLII 325 (SCC), [1997] S.C.J.  No. 31 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the discoverability rule is an interpretative tool for the construing of limitations statutes and ought to be considered each time a limitations provision is in issue. The court adopted the following passage from Fehr v. Jacob (1993) 1993 CanLII 4407 (MB CA), 14 C.C.L.T. (2d) 200 (Man. C.A.):

…When time runs from the “accrual of the cause of action” or from some other event which can be construed as occurring only when the injured party has knowledge of the injury sustained, the judge-made discoverability rule applies.  But, when time runs from an event which clearly occurs without regard to the injured party’s knowledge, the judge-made discoverability rule may not extend the period the legislature has prescribed.

[21]           Section 57(2) sets the time from which the clock runs from a precise event, namely, the date the tenant vacates the rental unit. The starting of the clock is in no way dependent upon the state of the tenant’s knowledge. It follows that the discoverability rule cannot be used as proposed by the appellants to extend the one-year period prescribed by the legislature.

It’s odd that the Court relied on Peixeiro instead of Pioneer, which is about 22 years more current and the leading decision on common law discovery.

 

Ontario: stop arguing common law discovery

The Divisional Court decision in Rooplal v. Fodor holds that the Limitations Act’s discovery provisions determine discoverability, not common law principles.  16 years after the Limitations Act came into force, this is a point that still needs making.

The motion judge had found the plaintiff’s proceeding timely, and the Divisional Court upheld her decision:

[4]               On the issue of discoverability, the parties relied on ostensibly conflicting lines of jurisprudence from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. On the one hand, were the cases decided before the Limitations Act had entered into force, finding that the limitation period begins to run when the material facts on which the claim is based have been discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff’s exercise of reasonable diligence (July v. Neal (1986), 1986 CanLII 149 (ON CA), 32 D.L.R. (4th) 463; Johnson v. Wunderlich (1986), 1986 CanLII 2618 (ON CA), 34 D.L.R. (4th) 120; Hier v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada (1988), 1988 CanLII 4741 (ON CA), 51 D.L.R. (4th) 1; and Chambo v. Musseau (1993), 1993 CanLII 8680 (ON CA), 15 O.R. (3d) 305. The other line of authority involves cases decided after the Limitations Act had entered into force, which, as explained in the Superior Court’s decision in Chahine v. Grybas, 2014 ONSC 4698, provided that the limitation period does not begin until the plaintiff makes an indemnification demand and the responding insurer fails to satisfy the claim (Markel Insurance Company of Canada v. ING Insurance Company of Canada, 2012 ONCA 218, 109 O.R. (3d) 652; and Schmitz v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2014 ONCA 88, 118 O.R. (3d) 694, leave to appeal refused, [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 143). The defendants argued that the July line of cases sets out the proper discoverability analysis, while the plaintiff argued that the Markel line of cases sets out the proper analysis.

 [5]               The Motions judge ultimately determined that she was bound by the Markel line of authorities rather than the July line of cases because, while the latter is predicated on the common law principles of discoverability set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse, 1986 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147, the discoverability provisions in the Limitations Act govern the analysis in the present case rather than the common law principles before the Court of Appeal in the July line of cases.

 

Ontario: some pedantry in response to the Court of Appeal decision in Rumsam

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Rumsam v. Pakes overturned the motion judge’s order granting the plaintiff leave to add a doctor as a defendant to the proceeding.  The doctor had opposed the motion on the basis of an expired limitation period.  The motion judge found the proceeding timely.

The Court’s conclusion seems right to me, but it contains some statements of law that are problematic and require comment.

First, there is this description of s. 5(1)(b):

[30]      As of August 29, 2013, Ms. Rumsam was obliged to exercise reasonable diligence to secure the name of the second doctor to satisfy the requirement in s. 5(b) [sic] of the Limitations Act that a “cause of action arises for the purposes of a limitation period when the material facts on which it is based have been discovered, or ought to have been discovered, by the plaintiff by the exercise of reasonable diligence” (emphasis added): Lawless, at para. 22.

This is not an accurate description of s. 5(1)(b).  That section provides that discovery occurs “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)”.

What paragraph 30 describes is common law discovery.  Discovery as codified in s. 5(1)(b) differs from common law discovery in two material ways.  First, the knowledge required by s. 5(1)(b) isn’t the material facts of a cause of action, but the four discovery matters in s. 5(1)(a); while these may accord generally with some causes of action, they don’t accord with many others (like breach of contract, which doesn’t have “injury, loss or damage” as a material fact.  Second, the knowledge is modified-objective, not purely objective; it’s the knowledge of a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the plaintiff.

It’s unfortunate that the Court of Appeal continues to treat common law discovery as the same as statutory discovery.  Relatively recent Court of Appeal jurisprudence distinguishing the “claim” form the “cause of action” has been promising (see Apotex and Gillham Bay), but apparently without the impact one might have hoped for.

Then there is this summary of conclusions:

[33] In conclusion:

1. A claim must be brought within two years of a claim being “discovered”.

2. A claim is discovered when the claimant first knew the injury occurred, that it was caused by an act or omission, that the act or omission was caused by the person against whom the claim is made, and that there was loss.

3. The injury was sustained on July 11, 2007, so normally the limitation period would have expired on July 11, 2009.

4. Given that Ms. Rumsam did not turn 18 until June 4, 2010, the presumptive limitation period did not begin to run until that date.

5. The limitation period would have expired on June 4, 2012, but for the discoverability principle.

6. By August 29, 2013 at the latest, Ms. Rumsam knew all of the material facts except the name of the “second clinic physician” in question.

7. By August 29, 2013 at the latest, she was required to exercise reasonable diligence to get the name within the two-year period as she knew she likely had a claim against this person for her injuries, and August 29, 2013 was “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” as set out in s. 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act.

8. The onus to prove reasonable diligence is on Ms. Rumsam.

9. She failed to exercise reasonable diligence as no steps were taken for at least a year.

10. As such, as the court held in Safai, there is no basis to extend the limitation period for more than two years as, from August 29, 2013, Ms. Rumsam knew of the likely claims and was in a position to ascertain the name by reasonable diligence.

Let’s go through the issues.

  1. A claim must be brought before the expiry of the limitation period, not within two years of discovery. Discovery causes the limitation period to commence, but it’s not determinative of its expiry.  There are multiple circumstances in which the limitation period will stop running—for a example a tolling agreement—so that it will expire more than two years from its commencement.
  2. Discovery does not require knowledge that an injury has occurred and that there was a loss, because for limitations purposes in injury and loss are effectively the same thing. There Limitations Act always refers to “injury, loss or damage”; “injury” never has a separate function from “loss” (which prompts the question why the act uses this language–I suspect it was intended by the drafters to signal that the act applies to all causes of action regardless of whether they require damage to be actionable).  In any event, all that discovery requires with respect to damage is knowledge that “injury, loss or damage” has occurred, so knowledge of injury or loss alone will suffice.
  3. There is no presumptive limitation period. There is basic limitation period in s. 4 that commences presumptively on the date of the act or omission that gives rise to the claim pursuant to s. 5(2). This is because of the “discoverability principle”, not despite it.  Section 5(2) creates a presumption that discovery occurs on the date of the act or omission, which the plaintiff can rebut.  The s. 5 discovery provisions always determine the commencement of the basic limitation period.

 

The Supreme Court on the application of common law discovery

In Pioneer v. Godfrey, the Supreme Court considered the application of common law discovery to statutory limitation periods.  It is now the leading case on the subject.

The Court held that the common law discovery rule applies only when a limitation period runs from the accrual of a cause of action, or “some other event that can occur only when the plaintiff has knowledge of his or her injury”.

It doesn’t apply when a statutory limitation period runs from an event unrelated to the accrual of the cause of action.  This is because legislature displaces the discovery rule when linking the limitation period to an event unrelated to the plaintiff’s cause of action.

In determining whether a limitation period runs from the accrual of a cause of action, substance prevails.  Even where a statute doesn’t explicitly state that a limitation period runs from accrual, the discovery rule applies if the limitation period in substance commences on accrual .

Thus s. 36(4) of the Competition Act, which the appeal concerned, is subject to discoverability:

[44]                          The text of s. 36(4)(a)(i) provides that no action may be brought under s. 36(1)(a) after two years from a day on which conduct contrary to Part VI occurred. From this, it is clear that the event triggering this particular limitation period is an element of the underlying cause of action. That is, the limitation period in s. 36(4)(a)(i) is triggered by the occurrence of an element of the underlying cause of action — specifically, conduct contrary to Part VI of the Competition Act. Therefore, it is subject to discoverability (Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology v. AU Optronics Corp., 2016 ONCA 621 (CanLII), 132 O.R. (3d) 81, at para. 18).

Justice Côté dissented.  When a limitation period commences on the occurrence of an element of a cause of action rather than the cause of action’s accrual, it does not necessarily follow that the discovery rule applies.  This is because the occurrence of the an element may not depend on the plaintiff’s knowledge:

[151]                     Conversely, “the occurrence of an element of the underlying cause of action” (Brown J.’s reasons, at para. 44) will not always fit within either category outlined above at para. 149. It may be that the occurrence of such an event does in fact depend on the state of the plaintiff’s knowledge, but unlike the accrual of a cause of action, this does not invariably follow as a matter of logical necessity. In Peixeiro, for example, this Court held that the point at which damages are sustained — a constituent element of (among other things) the tort of negligence — depends on when the plaintiff actually has knowledge of his or her injury. Knowledge will not form part of every element of the cause of action in negligence, however. A breach of a standard of care, for example, may occur years or even decades before the plaintiff first learns about it. Although such a breach is a prerequisite to a successful claim in negligence, it is also something that takes place without any regard to the plaintiff’s state of mind.

[153]                     With this in mind, I am respectfully of the view that my colleague’s approach is undermined by the well-settled principle that the discoverability rule is fundamentally a rule of statutory interpretation. The fact that a limitation period begins running upon the occurrence of anelement (and not upon the accrual or arising) of the plaintiff’s cause of action is not, on its own, indicative of any legislative intent regarding the applicability of the discoverability rule. As I have already indicated, my colleague’s conclusion is the same as the one reached by the Court of Appeal in this case and by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Fanshawe: in such circumstances, according to him, discoverability applies automatically. This, however, creates an arbitrary distinction between triggering events that are related to the cause of action and those that are not, despite the fact that both may occur independently of the plaintiff’s state of mind. How can it fairly be said that the legislature intended the discoverability rule to apply to one and not the other? Although knowledge is necessary for a cause of action to fully accrue to the plaintiff, it does not follow that an element of the cause of action also occurs only when the plaintiff has knowledge thereof.

[154]                     A preferable approach is instead one that considers each statutory limitation clause on its own terms, recognizing that a triggering event that relates to a cause of action can, but need not, be dependent upon the plaintiff’s state of mind. This approach is faithful to this Court’s jurisprudence, and respectful of the notion of discoverability as an interpretative tool and not a general rule that allows clear statutory wording to be disregarded. For my part, I would reaffirm the approach laid out in Fehr without any modification.

Thus discoverability doesn’t apply to the s. 36(4) limitation period:

[157]                     The wording of the limitation period set out in s. 36(4)(a)(i) provides ample support for the proposition that the two-year period commences independently of when the plaintiff first learns of the wrongdoing. Rather than having the limitation period commence upon the accrual of the cause of action (as was the case in Central Trust and M. (K.)), Parliament decided that it would instead commence on “a day on which the conduct was engaged in” — which, contrary to the position taken by my colleague, is not “wording to [the same] effect” as “accrual of the cause of action” (paras. 37 and 41). There is simply no link between this triggering event and the plaintiff’s state of mind; it is, in short, an “event which clearly occurs without regard to the injured party’s knowledge”. The Certification Judge’s reading of this provision led him to the same conclusion (para. 54 (CanLII)). It was the existence of conflicting jurisprudence on this point that caused him “not [to be] satisfied that it is plain and obvious that the discoverability principle can never apply to the limitation period in s. 36(4)” (para. 58).

[158]                     I acknowledge that the “discoverability rule has been applied by this Court even to statutes of limitation in which plain construction of the language used would appear to exclude the operation of the rule” (Peixeiro, at para. 38). However, a consideration of the context surrounding s. 36(4)(a)(i) lends further support to the conclusion that the discoverability rule does not apply.

[159]                     First, the cause of action in s. 36(1)(a) is based on two essential elements: (i) the defendant engaging in conduct contrary to any provision of Part VI, and (ii) the plaintiff suffering loss or damage as a result of such conduct. It is only upon the occurrence of both events that the plaintiff can commence proceedings on the basis of this statutory cause of action. Cognizant of this, and of the fact that conspiracies of this nature take place in secret, Parliament decided that the limitation period would not begin when the plaintiff actually sustained loss or damage, but rather when the defendant engaged in the prohibited conduct. It is important to keep in mind that the point at which the conduct is engaged in necessarily precedes the point at which a claimant will suffer loss or damage as a result of such conduct. I would also note that the offence under s. 45 is complete as soon as an unlawful agreement is made, meaning that the “conduct” is “engaged in” even if the agreement is not actually implemented or prices do not actually increase. It follows as a direct consequence of this legislative choice that the limitation period can in fact expire before the plaintiff is in a position to commence proceedings under s. 36(1)(a).

[160]                     Second, s. 36(4)(a)(ii) provides a mechanism for the plaintiff to advance a claim that may be barred by s. 36(4)(a)(i): even if two years have expired from the day on which the prohibited conduct was engaged in, the limitation period will restart on the day on which criminal proceedings relating to the impugned conduct are finally disposed of. While s. 36(4)(a)(ii) applies only where the alleged conduct contrary to Part VI is the subject of criminal prosecution, it nevertheless provides an indication that Parliament was aware of the strictness of s. 36(4)(a)(i) and chose to enact this provision as the only means of relieving against it.

[161]                     Third, and unlike claims subject to the general limitation period in British Columbia’s Limitation Act, S.B.C. 2012, c. 13, s. 21, Parliament has not subjected claims under s. 36(1)(a) to any ultimate limitation period. Interpreting s. 36(4)(a)(i) as commencing only when the underlying conduct becomes discoverable will therefore have the effect of leaving defendants at risk of lawsuit indefinitely. As Paul-Erik Veel helpfully observes, the result would be that “companies could face claims decades later, well after the employees involved in the alleged conspiracy may have left and documents lost, without any ability to defend themselves” (Waiting forever for the axe to drop? Discoverability and the limitation period for Competition Act claims, Lenczner Slaght, August 12, 2016 (online)). This runs contrary to the certainty and evidentiary rationales that underlie the law of limitations.

[162]                     Fourth, the two-year limitation period was enacted by Parliament at a time when limitation periods were comparatively much longer. For example, the provincial limitations statutes that were in force at the time in Ontario and British Columbia set out a general limitation period of six years (The Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 246, s. 45(1); Statute of Limitations, R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 370, s. 3). The relatively short limitation period at issue here, which commences even before the cause of action fully crystalizes, provides a further indication of the premium that Parliament placed on granting repose to defendants and encouraging diligence by potential plaintiffs.

I find Justice Côté’s reasoning more persuasive.  I say that with the qualification that I am not as conversant with common law discovery jurisprudence as I am with codified discovery jurisprudence.

That said, I am sufficiently conversant to recognise a curious fiction that underlies the court’s competing arguments.  For the most part, courts apply common law discovery to limitation periods that predate the rule.

Take for example the limitation period in s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act, which commences on death.  It predates the 1997 Supreme Court decision in Peixeiro which determined that discoverability was of general application.  Thus in 2000, the Court of Appeal in Waschkowski noted that “Until the later decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Peixeiro v. Haberman, 1997 CanLII 325 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549, 151 D.L.R. (4th) 429, it was not clear whether the discoverability rule applied to all limitation provisions, or whether its application depended on the actual wording of the statutory limitation”

Section 38(3) dates from 1990.  It’s possible, but doubtful, that the legislature drafted s. 38(3) as a response to, say, the early SCC discoverability decisions like 1986’s Central Trust.  However, it’s beyond doubt that the Legislature did not draft the limitation periods in the former Limitations Act mindful of the discoverability rule.  Some of those limitation periods were centuries old before discoverability was even a glimmer in the Legislature’s eye.

Similarly, it’s not clear to me how Parliament could have intended discoverability to apply to s. 36 of the Competition Act when that provision appears to have been enacted in 1985, a year before Central Trust.

So, the court really isn’t arguing about what Parliament intended subjectively, because Parliament didn’t know that discoverability was going to be a rule of general application.  Instead, the court is trying to rationalise common law discovery with limitation periods drafted before the rule existed.  I think Justice Côté’s approach is the soundest conceptually.

In that regard, I note another problem with the majority’s analysis.  If a limitation period commences on the occurrence of an event that forms part of a cause of action, and if discoverability applies, it would be possible to discover the event before the cause of action accrues.  The limitation period would commence before there is a legal basis for an action.  This wouldn’t happen with s. 36(4), but insofar as the majority is setting out a rule, it’s one with problematic implications.

There are two other noteworthy aspects of the decision:

First, the decision includes what is now the leading consideration of fraudulent concealment.  Importantly, the court clarifies that the doctrine does not require a “special relationship between the parties” as its conventional formulation suggests:

[53]                          While it is therefore clear that equitable fraud can be established in cases where a special relationship subsists between the parties, Lord Evershed, M.R. did not limit its establishment to such circumstances, nor did he purport to define exhaustively the circumstances in which it would or would not apply (see T.P. v. A.P., 1988 ABCA 352 (CanLII), 92 A.R. 122, at para. 10). Indeed, he expressly refused to do so: “[w]hat is covered by equitable fraud is a matter which Lord Hardwicke did not attempt to define two hundred years ago, and I certainly shall not attempt to do so now” (Kitchen, at p. 249, emphasis added).

[54]                          When, then, does fraudulent concealment arise so as to delay the running of a limitation period? Recalling that it is a form of equitable fraud, it becomes readily apparent that what matters is not whether there is a special relationship between the parties, but whether it would be, for any reason, unconscionable for the defendant to rely on the advantage gained by having concealed the existence of a cause of action. This was the Court’s point in Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd., 2002 SCC 19 (CanLII), [2002] S.C.R. 678, at para. 39:

[Equitable fraud] “… refers to transactions falling short of deceit but where the Court is of the opinion that it is unconscientious for a person to avail himself of the advantage obtained” (p. 37). Fraud in the “wider sense” of a ground for equitable relief “is so infinite in its varieties that the Courts have not attempted to define it”, but “all kinds of unfair dealing and unconscionable conduct in matters of contract come within its ken” [Emphasis added.]

It follows that the concern which drives the application of the doctrine of equitable fraud is not limited to the unconscionability of taking advantage of a special relationship with the plaintiff. Nor is the doctrine’s application limited, as my colleague suggests, to cases where there is something “tantamount to or commensurate with” a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant (paras. 171 and 173-74). While a special relationship is a means by which a defendant might conceal the existence of a cause of action, equitable fraud may also be established by pointing to other forms of unconscionable behaviour, such as (for example) “some abuse of a confidential position, some intentional imposition, or some deliberate concealment of facts” (M. (K.), at p. 57, citing Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed. 1979), vol. 28, para. 919). In short, the inquiry is not into the relationship within which the conduct occurred, but into the unconscionability of the conduct itself.

Second, the majority formulates discoverability as applying when “a limitation period runs from the accrual of cause of action or knowledge of the injury”.   The language “knowledge of the injury” comes from Peixero, which takes it from the MB CA decision in Fehr, where it appears without any explanation.  I don’t know what it means.  Is it a reference to a circumstance where a wrong isn’t actionable unless it causes an injury that rises above a threshold?  I struggle to think of other scenarios where knowledge of an injury causes time to run, but knowledge of the cause of action wouldn’t.

It’s odd to me that the majority thought this would be so self-evident that no explanation was required.  At risk of a little (inexcusable) immodesty, the majority and the dissent cite the my text book: this is good indication that if I don’t know what it means, I’m not sure the court could reasonably assume it’s common knowledge.

 

 

Ontario: the misapplication of common law limitations principles

In Bailey v. Milo-Food & Agricultural Infrastructure & Services Inc., the Court of Appeal held that in a wrongful dismissal action, the cause of action for wrongful dismissal arises on the date of the termination notice:

[5]         The appellant submits that the motion judge erred in concluding that his cause of action for wrongful dismissal arose on the date he was provided notice and not on the last day he worked for Milo-FAIS. He argues that the motion judge’s reliance on Jones v. Friedman, 2006 CanLII 580 (ON CA), 2006 CarswellOnt 120 (C.A.) in this regard was misplaced. His submission is that the motion judge erred by conflating actual dismissal with notice of future dismissal, since in Jones the date of dismissal, as pleaded, coincided with the date of notice. According to the appellant, subsequent trial decisions relying on Jones have continued to conflate these dates.

[6]         We do not give effect to this submission and decline to adopt the restrictive interpretation of Jones urged upon us by the appellant. In Jones the notice of termination was given on December 12, 1994 and the employment ended on January 31, 1995. The breach the appellant relied on occurred on December 12, 1994 when his employment was terminated without reasonable notice. This court fully appreciated the context, and decided the date of notice of termination was when the limitation period began. Jones stands for the principle that a cause of action for wrongful dismissal arises on the date of notice of termination. The motion judge made no error in his reliance on that case or in striking the wrongful dismissal claim.

This is an example of the misapplication of common law principles to a Limitations Act analysis.  Limitation periods under the Act commence on discovery of a claim, not the accrual of a cause of action.

The words “cause of action” do not appear in the Limitations Act.  It is the discovery of a “claim”, not a cause of action, that commences time.  This is by design.  Cause of action accrual was a leading grievance in the movement to reform the former limitations scheme; it required a confounding, even esoteric analysis that resulted in ambiguity and confusion.  Here are the essential differences between a “claim” and a cause of action:

  1. A “claim” as defined by the Limitations Act is materially different than a cause of action. A “claim” is purely a limitations concept, whereas a cause of action is what entitles a plaintiff to relief from the court.  A claim has only two factual components (wrongful conduct and resulting damage), whereas a cause of action may have multiple factual components (like negligent misrepresentation, which has five).  Damage is always a component of a “claim”, whereas it is not always a component of a cause of action (such as breach of contract).
  2. Discovery of a “claim” is materially different from discovery of a cause of action. Discovery of a “claim” requires knowledge that a proceeding is an appropriate remedy, whereas at common law, discovery of a cause of action requires knowledge of its material facts.  The appropriateness of a proceeding as a remedy is not a material fact of any cause of action.
  3. “Claims” and causes of action are connected. The cause of action informs the content of the “claim”.  The wrongful conduct in the cause of action is the wrongful conduct in the Claim.  The damage that is relevant to the wrongful conduct, whether it forms part of the cause of action or not, is the damage in the Claim.