Ontario Act s. 5(1)(a)

Ontario: Court of Appeal on the knowledge required to plausibly infer liability

The Court of Appeal decision in Di Filippo v. Bank of Nova Scotia explains the degree of knowledge required to know the s. 5(1)(a) discovery matters. This includes a clarification that the knowledge necessary to plausibly infer liability is not actual knowledge of the discovery matters. Actual knowledge requires knowledge of the material facts upon which to plausibly infer liability.

Perhaps like me you’ll find this distinction somewhat obtuse. What’s the difference between plausibly inferring liability per se and plausibly inferring liability based on material facts? Practically speaking, I think the point the court is making is that if you plausibly infer liability per se you have a suspicion of liability, but if you make that inference based on material facts, you have more than a suspicion. And so it’s just a different way of formulating the “more than a suspicion, less than certainty” standard that the court applied prior to Grant Thornton.

Here are the relevant paragraphs:

[54]      The court explained how to assess the plaintiff’s knowledge at para. 44:

In assessing the plaintiff’s state of knowledge, both direct and circumstantial evidence can be used. Moreover, a plaintiff will have constructive knowledge when the evidence shows that the plaintiff ought to have discovered the material facts by exercising reasonable diligence. Suspicion may trigger that exercise. (Crombie Property Holdings Ltd. v. McColl-Frontenac Inc., 2017 ONCA 16, 406 D.L.R. (4th) 252, at para. 42).

[55]      This court explained in Crombie that suspicion may trigger the due diligence obligation, but suspicion does not constitute actual knowledge. The full paragraph clearly explains the difference:

That the motion judge equated Crombie’s knowledge of possible contamination with knowledge of actual contamination is apparent from her statement that “[a]ll the testing that followed simply confirmed [Crombie’s] suspicions about what had already been reported on” (at para. 31). It was not sufficient that Crombie had suspicions or that there was possible contamination. The issue under s. 5(1)(a) of the Limitations Act, 2002 for when a claim is discovered, is the plaintiff’s “actual” knowledge. The suspicion of certain facts or knowledge of a potential claim may be enough to put a plaintiff on inquiry and trigger a due diligence obligation, in which case the issue is whether a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the plaintiff ought reasonably to have discovered the claim, under s. 5(1)(b). Here, while the suspicion of contamination was sufficient to give rise to a duty of inquiry, it was not sufficient to meet the requirement for actual knowledge. The subsurface testing, while confirmatory of the appellant’s suspicions, was the mechanism by which the appellant acquired actual knowledge of the contamination.

[56]      Similarly, in Kaynes v. BP p.l.c., this court held that knowledge of allegations in pleadings does not, without more, constitute actual knowledge of one’s claim. […]

 

[59]      These examples draw out an important distinction from Grant Thornton: actual knowledge does not materialize when a party can make a “plausible inference of liability.” Rather, actual knowledge materializes when a party has “the material facts upon which a plausible inference of liability on the defendant’s part can be drawn” [emphasis added]. While class counsel may have had reason to suspect that Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley were part of the conspiracy, that suspicion was not actual knowledge. The motion judge erred in law by finding actual knowledge.

[64]      The effect of s. 5(1)(b) is to impose an obligation of due diligence on those who have reason to suspect that they may have a claim, but who do not yet have actual knowledge of the material facts giving rise to that claim: Crombie, at para. 42. Where potential plaintiffs sit idle or fail to exercise due diligence, the limitation period will commence on the date that the claim would have been discoverable had reasonable investigatory steps been taken. In other words, it is the date when the potential plaintiffs have constructive, as opposed to actual knowledge of their claim: Grant Thornton, at para. 44.

[65]      A court determining this issue will require evidence of how the material facts could reasonably have been obtained more than two years before the motion to add was brought: Mancinelli, at paras. 28, 31; Morrison v. Barzo, 2018 ONCA 979, at paras. 61-62.

 

The decision also includes an interesting if somewhat esoteric addition to s. 5(1)(a)(iv) appropriateness jurisprudence. A proceeding can be an appropriate remedy only if the circumstances give rise to a legally recognised cause of action on which to base the proceeding:

 

[37]      With respect to criterion (iv)[6], a proceeding would only be appropriate if the circumstances give rise to one or more legally recognized causes of action on which to base the proceeding. The wrong must have a legally recognized remedy. It is only in this sense – that legal recourse must be appropriate to address a loss caused by the proposed defendant’s act or omission – that the term “claim” has any legal specificity.

I expect the court assumed this to be self-evident, and perhaps it is. But it has a curious implication. Because a novel cause of action is, by definition, not legally recognised, it follows that a claim based on a novel cause of action is never discoverable. If a claim isn’t discoverable, the basic limitation period will never begin. Accordingly, only the ultimate limitation period could bar an action based on a novel claim.

Lastly, the decision contains a comprehensive statement of the law of amending a pleading to advance a new claim after the expiry of the limitation period.

 

[40]      These cases make it clear that it is the pleading of the facts that is key. If a statement of claim pleads all the necessary facts to ground a claim on more than one legal basis, and the original statement of claim only asserts one of the legal bases – that is, one cause of action based on those facts – the statement of claim can be amended more than two years after the claim was discovered to assert another legal basis for a remedy arising out of the same facts – that is, another cause of action. This is because it is only the discovery of the claim, as defined in the Limitations Act and the case law, that is time barred under s. 4, not the discovery of any particular legal basis for the proceeding.

[41]      In the textbook The Law of Civil Procedure in Ontario, Paul M. Perell & John W. Morden 4th ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2020), at pp. 220-21, the authors explain when an amendment will be allowed in the following passage:

A new cause of action is not asserted if the amendment pleads an alternative claim for relief out of the same facts previously pleaded and no new facts are relied upon, or amount simply to different legal conclusions drawn from the same set of facts, or simply provide particulars of an allegation already pled or additional facts upon which the original right of action is based… Thus, where a limitation period has run its course, allowing or disallowing the amendment depends upon whether the allegations of the proposed amendment arise out of the already pleaded facts, in which case the amendment will be allowed, but if they do not the amendment will be refused. An amendment of a statement of claim to assert an alternative theory of liability or an additional remedy based on facts that have already been pleaded in the statement of claim does not assert a new claim for the purposes of s. 4 of the Limitations Act. [Citations omitted.]

[42]      In Klassen v. Beausoleil, 2019 ONCA 407 at para. 30, this court instructed that the application of this test should not be stringent or overly technical:

In the course of this exercise, it is important to bear in mind the general principle that, on this type of pleadings motion, it is necessary to read the original Statement of Claim generously and with some allowance for drafting deficiencies.

Ontario: s. 5(1) requires specific factual findings

Cooper v. Toronto (City) follows Morrison v. Barzo for the principle that the court must answer the questions asked by s. 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Limitations Act.  The court found that a Master’s failure to make these specific findings was a reversible error:

[17]           The first ground of appeal is that the Master erred by dismissing the Motion without making findings regarding: (1) the date on which the plaintiff first knew the requisite elements of her claim against Hydro; and (2) when “a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of [the plaintiff] first ought to have known of such claim.” Such findings are a requirement before any finding that claims against a proposed defendant are statute-barred: see Morrison v. Barzo at para. 30.

[18]           I agree that the Master erred in law in dismissing the Motion without making either of these findings.

[19]           In dismissing the Motion without making the necessary findings of fact set out above to ground her decision, the Master erred in law by failing to apply the test as set out in Morrison v. Barzo. Accordingly, the Order must be set aside.
The decision also provides a good example of why taking the position that a particular step could have resulted in earlier discovery is not determinative of when discovery ought to have occurred.  Evidence that the step would have resulted in earlier discovery is necessary:
[27]           I pause to address the question of who has the onus of demonstrating that Cooper’s cause of action was actually discovered, or was reasonably discoverable, more than two years prior to the commencement of the Motion. While it is not made express in Fennell and Morrison, in circumstances such as the present where a plaintiff demonstrates a reasonable basis for concluding that a cause of action was discovered within the applicable limitation period, as a practical matter, a proposed defendant who asserts a limitation defence must demonstrate that the plaintiff had actual knowledge, or reasonably ought to have had knowledge, on an earlier date outside the limitation period.
 [28]           If the basis of the defendant’s position in such circumstances is not that the evidence demonstrates actual knowledge at an earlier date but rather that the plaintiff failed to conduct a duly diligent investigation, Morrison v. Barzo says that the plaintiff has the onus of providing a reasonable explanation for his or her failure to conduct any further investigation. As I understand the applicable case law including Skrobacky v. Frymer, in such event, a court may grant the defendant’s motion only if it finds the plaintiff’s explanation to be unreasonable. If, however, such a determination requires a finding of a material fact or a determination regarding the plaintiff’s credibility, a motions judge should not determine the reasonableness of the explanation without a trial to determine such matters. In such circumstances, therefore, the motions judge cannot make a determination of whether the plaintiff should reasonably have discovered his or her claim outside the applicable limitation period – that is, satisfied the plaintiff’s obligation of due diligence that is implicit in s. 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, 2002 – and must therefore dismiss the defendant’s motion.
 [29]           In my opinion, the Court finds itself in that position in the present circumstances.
 [30]           Cooper’s explanation for her failure to investigate the ownership of the Pole is essentially that her communications with the two most obvious potential defendants – the condominium corporation and the City – did not prompt a suggestion that Hydro might be the owner of the Pole. She says, in effect, that she was entitled to rely on the communication from the condominium corporation’s insurer and her communications with the City that suggested that the City was the owner in the absence of any suggestion to the contrary from the City until December 2016. Accordingly, Cooper’s argument proceeds on the basis that she never received any information that gave rise to a need to inquire further regarding the ownership of the Pole.
 [31]           Cooper submits that this is a reasonable explanation, given the low threshold for a reasonable explanation in the case law. She relies on the decisions in Galota v. Festival Hall Developments Ltd. et al., 2015 ONSC 6177; upheld 2016 ONCA 585; Madrid v. Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc., et al., 2010 ONSC 2235 and Kesian v. The City of Toronto, 2016 ONSC 6461 as evidence of this low threshold and as exhibiting similar circumstances in which courts have concluded that the threshold had been satisfied.
 [32]           Hydro effectively argues that Cooper’s explanation is not reasonable in view of either or both of her receipt of the Article and the City’s denial of jurisdiction in its statement of defence. In my view, however, given the evidence before the Master and this Court, neither Cooper’s mere receipt of the Article, without evidence that she actually read it, nor the City’s denial of jurisdiction in its statement of defence were sufficient to fix her with knowledge that required a further investigation for the following reasons.
 [33]           The mere existence of the Article cannot be a basis for concluding that Cooper ought reasonably to have conducted a further investigation. This would require a finding, by inference or otherwise, that she read the Article such that she was aware, at a minimum, of the subject-matter of the Article even if she did not have knowledge of the specific facts set out therein. However, the Court’s conclusion above that a trial is required to determine whether Cooper read the Article precludes such a finding by this Court.
 [34]           Accordingly, Hydro’s second submission really turns on whether Cooper’s receipt of the City’s statement of defence was sufficient to require a further investigation. I accept that a specific denial of jurisdiction could, in some circumstances, have such a result.  However, in this case, the denial was only one of at least ten alternative defences asserted by the City in its statement of defence. In addition, the denial was not accompanied by the assertion of any specific facts supporting this defence nor did it identify Hydro as the owner of the Pole. It is not reasonable to assume that a plaintiff would identify a potential issue of ownership from a bald denial of jurisdiction in such circumstances.
 [35]           I also note that Hydro has identified a number of searches that it says would have revealed its ownership of the Pole if Cooper had conducted one or more of them. I do not doubt the utility of such searches. However, the issue is not whether such searches would have revealed Hydro’s ownership of the Pole but rather whether any searches were required, that is, put in the negative, whether Cooper’s failure to undertake any of these searches was unreasonable.
 [36]           In summary, the relevant evidence before the Court is limited to the following. The Pole was located on a City sidewalk. There is no evidence of any indication on the Pole that Hydro was the owner. There is also no evidence that Cooper ever read, or understood the contents of, the Article prior to May 15, 2017, which would have alerted her to Hydro’s ownership. Lastly, for a period of more than 44 months after Cooper put the City on notice of her claim, the City did not deny ownership of the Pole in any communication with Cooper or her counsel. In these circumstances, I conclude that the determination of whether Cooper has a reasonable explanation for her failure to investigate further the ownership of the Pole will require a trial of the issue regarding whether, and if so when, Cooper or her counsel read the Article.

 

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.

 

Ontario: the Court of Appeal on the evidence required for discovery

It sometimes happens that I miss notable decisions.  And so, better late than never, I draw Crombie Property Holdings Limited v. McColl-Frontenac Inc. to your attention.

These are the noteworthy aspects of the Court of Appeal decision:

1.  It recaps the standard of review for limitations analyses:

[31]      The Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2014] 1. S.C.R. 87, at para. 81, established the standard of review on appeal of a summary judgment. The court stated that, “[w]hen the motion judge exercises her new fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1) and determines whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, this is a question of mixed fact and law”, reviewable only for a “palpable and overriding error”, unless there is an “extricable error in principle”. Further, the question whether a limitation period expired prior to the commencement of an action is typically a question of mixed fact and law and therefore subject to review on a “palpable and overriding error” standard: Longo v. MacLaren Art Centre Inc., 2014 ONCA 526(CanLII), 323 O.A.C. 246, at para. 38. A “palpable and overriding error” is “an obvious error that is sufficiently significant to vitiate the challenged finding of fact”: Longo, at para. 39.

2.  It succinctly summarises the evidentiary burden on a summary judgment motion to dismiss on the basis of an expired limitation period:

[33]      In order to obtain a summary dismissal of the action, the moving parties were required to establish that there was no issue requiring a trial about their limitation defence. The specific issue was whether Crombie’s claim in respect of the environmental contamination of its property was “discovered” within the meaning of s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 before April 28, 2012.

3.  It cites Van Allen for the principle that it is reasonable discovery and not the mere possibility of discovery the causes the limitation period to commence: see para. 35
It inaccurately describes the knowledge necessary to cause discovery of a claim:

[35]      The limitation period runs from when the plaintiff is actually aware of the matters referred to in s. 5(1)(a)(i) to (iv) or when a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the plaintiff first ought to have known of all of those matters: Longo, at para. 41. The knowledge sufficient to commence the limitations clock has been described as “subjective” knowledge or “objective” knowledge.

This paragraph appears to conflate the amount of knowledge required by s. 5 with the subjectivity of the knowledge.  A claimant requires prima facie knowledge.  This is knowledge that is greater than suspicion but less than certainty.  See for example Brown v. Wahl at 15.  Then there is question of whether the plaintiff subjectively or subjectively-objectively had this knowledge (not purely objectively, as the Court suggests in this decision, because the question asked in s. 5(1)(b) is a “modified objective” test as it doesn’t ask about the knowledge of a reasonable person, but a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the claimant.

Knowledge of a possible wrong (a mere suspicion) is insufficient for discovery of a claim; prima facie knowledge of an actual wrong is necessary:

[42]      That the motion judge equated Crombie’s knowledge of possible contamination with knowledge of actual contamination is apparent from her statement that “[a]ll the testing that followed simply confirmed [Crombie’s] suspicions about what had already been reported on” (at para. 31). It was not sufficient that Crombie had suspicions or that there was possible contamination. The issue under s. 5(1)(a) of the Limitations Act, 2002 for when a claim is discovered, is the plaintiff’s “actual” knowledge. The suspicion of certain facts or knowledge of a potential claim may be enough to put a plaintiff on inquiry and trigger a due diligence obligation, in which case the issue is whether a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the plaintiff ought reasonably to have discovered the claim, under s. 5(1)(b). Here, while the suspicion of contamination was sufficient to give rise to a duty of inquiry, it was not sufficient to meet the requirement for actual knowledge. The subsurface testing, while confirmatory of the appellant’s suspicions, was the mechanism by which the appellant acquired actual knowledge of the contamination.

 

Ontario: discovery doesn’t require knowledge of culpability

Update: The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.

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

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

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

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

 

Ontario: 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.