Ontario Court of Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario: Court of Appeal on the interaction of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) and s. 18 of the Limitations Act

Two aspects of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ridel v. Goldberg are noteworthy.

First, the court held that a contribution and indemnity proceeding does not become an appropriate remedy for a loss only when the main action resolves.  Section 5(1)(a)(iv) will not suspend the limitation period as against a second defendant where a plaintiff has commenced a legal proceeding against another defendant for the same wrong:

[70]      The appellants rely on s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act to argue that the appeal of the 2013 Judgment postponed the running of the limitation period against e3m. They say that, because the appeal may have eliminated e3m’s liability to the Ridels and hence e3m’s claim against Goldberg, they would not reasonably have known that an action was “an appropriate means” to seek to remedy e3m’s losses until the appeal was dismissed.

[72]      The appellants rely on this court’s decision in Independence Plaza 1 Associates, L.L.C. v. Figliolini, 2017 ONCA 44, 136 O.R. (3d) 202, a case involving an action in Ontario to enforce a foreign judgment, in support of their argument that it was not legally appropriate to commence a claim against Goldberg until the appeal of the 2013 Judgment was determined. In Figliolini, this court held, at para. 77:

 In the usual case, it will not be legally appropriate to commence a legal proceeding on a foreign judgment in Ontario until the time to appeal the judgment in the foreign jurisdiction has expired or all appeal remedies have been exhausted. The foreign appeal process has the potential to resolve the dispute between the parties. If the judgment is overturned, the debt obligation underlying the judgment creditor’s proceeding on the foreign judgment disappears.

[73]      The appellants say that, just as this court held that the basic limitation period for an action to enforce a foreign judgment in Ontario runs from the date of exhaustion of all appeals (subject to discoverability principles), the same should apply to a claim that, as here, is based on a domestic judgment. In either case, the debt obligation underlying the claimant’s proceeding would disappear if the judgment were overturned.

 [74]      In my view, Figliolini does not apply by analogy or otherwise. The main issue in Figliolini was whether s. 16(1)(b) of the Limitations Act (which provides that there is no limitation period in respect of, among other things, “a proceeding to enforce an order of a court, or any other order that may be enforced in the same way as an order of a court”) would apply to an action to enforce a foreign judgment. The court rejected that argument, and then went on to determine when the basic two-year limitation period for an action to enforce a foreign judgment would begin to run.
 [75]      Figliolini dealt only with actions to enforce foreign judgments. Strathy C.J.O. noted that “a judgment creditor who brings an Ontario proceeding on a foreign judgment must show that the foreign court had jurisdiction and that the judgment is final and for the payment of money”: at para. 51. An action to enforce a domestic judgment is, by s. 16(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, not subject to any limitation period. And, importantly, actions such as the present action – which are not to enforce a judgment, but to claim indemnity – are governed by their own provisions in the Limitations Act that would be entirely undermined if the appellants’ argument were given effect. This is the fatal flaw in the appellants’ reliance on Figliolini.
 [76]      Unlike proceedings to enforce a foreign judgment, which require finality, there is no requirement that in order to effectively claim contribution and indemnity there must be a final judgment against the claimant. To the contrary, the two-year limitation period runs from the date the claim is made against the first wrongdoer, subject to the discoverability rules in s. 5(1)(a): Mega International, at para. 74. In Canaccord, this court noted that s. 18 of the Limitations Act specifically departs from the previous law for contribution claims between tortfeasors, where the limitation period ran against the party claiming indemnity from the date of judgment: at para. 20.
 [77]      While not determinative, this court’s decision in Tapak v. Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London, 2018 ONCA 168, 76 C.C.L.I. (5th) 197, leave to appeal refused, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 157, is instructive. In that case, the appellants relied on s. 5(1)(a)(iv) to argue that an appeal against other parties, if successful, might have eliminated their losses and that they therefore did not know that their action for contribution and indemnity was “an appropriate means” to seek to remedy their losses until the appeal was dismissed. At para. 13, the court rejected this argument, stating:
 [Section] 5(1)(a)(iv) is not intended to be used to parse claims as between different defendants and thus permit one defendant to be pursued before turning to another defendant. Rather, it is intended to address the situation where there may be an avenue of relief outside of a court proceeding that a party can use to remedy their ‘injury, loss or damage’….

I agree with the latter observation that s. 5(1)(a)(iv) is not intended to operate in the manner proposed by the appellants.

[78]      In the present appeal, the appellants assert that it was legally appropriate for e3m to delay an action against Goldberg until the Prior Action was finally disposed of on appeal. This is precisely the sort of litigation in stages which will not delay the commencement of a limitation period for purposes of s. 5(1)(a)(iv). In the usual case, s. 5(1)(a)(iv) will not suspend the limitation period as against a second defendant where a plaintiff has commenced a legal proceeding against another defendant for the same wrong: Presley, at para. 31. This general principle is buttressed by the specific and certain rules for the commencement of claims for contribution and indemnity ushered in by s. 18 of the Limitations Act. Sharpe J.A., in Canaccord, carefully described the legislative history in concluding that s. 18 provided a “marked departure from” and “significant reforms to” the previous regime governing limitation periods for claims for contribution and indemnity: at para. 27. Under the previous law, a tort claimant seeking contribution and indemnity could wait for judgment in the main action before commencing a claim for indemnification. In contrast, “s. 18 significantly shortens the limitation period governing contribution and indemnity claims to two years from the date the first alleged wrongdoer was served with the underlying claim, thereby encouraging resolution of all claims arising from the wrong at the same time”: Canaccord, at para. 20.

This is the first time the court has confronted the tension between s. 18 and its recent appropriateness jurisprudence.  It is settled that an alternative process with the potential to eliminate the plaintiff’s loss can suspend the discovery of a claim.  In a claim for contribution and indemnity, if the main action results in the dismissal of the claim, the defendant will have no loss for which to claim contribution and indemnity.  The main action will have eliminated the plaintiff’s loss.

However, this is clearly at odds with the intent of s. 18, which the court notes.  I think the court resolved this problem as best it could: the main action is not an alternative process, but the same litigation.

Secondly, the court reiterated that s. 12 of the Limitations Act applies to claims asserted by a creditor who has taken an assignment of a claim of a bankrupt under s. 38 of the BIA. The applicable date of discovery is the earlier of the predecessor’s discovery of the claim, or the person claiming through the predecessor’s discovery of the claim.  The assignment does not restart the limitation period.

The court’s analysis is well-reasoned and instructive:

[44]      In this case, by contrast, the appellants are pursuing a claim that initially belonged to e3m and that vested in the trustee on e3m’s bankruptcy. The claim for breach of Goldberg’s fiduciary and other duties to e3m is not one that the appellants could have pursued before e3m’s bankruptcy. Indcondo did not address the question of when the limitation period under s. 12 would run in respect of a creditor who may well have known of the potential claim by the bankrupt, but had no way to enforce it until the bankruptcy.

 [45]      The appellants characterize the motions judge’s error here as a failure to consider s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act in relation to the claim against Goldberg. Whether a proceeding was an appropriate means to remedy a claim is an essential element in the discoverability analysis and the failure to consider s. 5(1)(a)(iv) is an error of law: Presley, at para. 15.
 [46]      I agree with the appellants that, because they lacked capacity to bring a claim in the name of e3m against Goldberg, any personal knowledge they might have had before e3m’s bankruptcy respecting a claim did not cause the limitation period to run against them pursuant to s. 12(1). In my view, however, this result does not flow from the application of s. 5(1)(a)(iv).
 [47]      In determining when the limitation period began to run in respect of the appellants’ claim, the question is when they, as “claimants” – that is, as persons who reasonably had the claim in question – knew or ought to have known of the matters referred to in s. 5(1)(a). The application of the test in s. 5(1)(a) requires first that the claims at issue be defined or identified: Morrison, at paras. 33, 49.
 [48]      In this case, the claim advanced in the appellants’ action is not a claim by them personally, or one that they could have advanced personally (as was the case in Indcondo), but a claim they are asserting on behalf of the bankrupt, e3m, against its former principal, Goldberg. Section 5(1) applies to “the person with the claim”. When they were litigating against e3m in the Prior Action, the appellants may well have known of the various matters under s. 5(1)(a) in the general sense, but because they were not and could not have been “the persons with the claim” at that stage, any such knowledge was immaterial.
 [49]      Until e3m was bankrupt, any claim against Goldberg for breach of his duties as a director could only be pursued by e3m. The appellants had no right, title or interest in the claim. They had no ability to bring the claim while the claim continued to belong to e3m.

[51]      Similarly, in this case, the appellants could not have asserted a claim against Goldberg for wrongs done to e3m until they obtained the s. 38 order. In other words, until they obtained the s. 38 order, they had no standing to claim for e3m’s losses. Any knowledge of Goldberg’s wrongdoing in relation to e3m, whether by virtue of what they themselves had pleaded in the Prior Action, or when they received Pepall J.’s reasons in the 2013 Judgment, was not sufficient for them to be able to act.

 [52]      The motions judge’s conclusion that, because of their personal knowledge of the material facts in relation to e3m’s claim against Goldberg, the limitation period began to run against the appellants as early as July 2006 and as late as April 2013, was therefore in error. Their knowledge of those matters did not become relevant until they had or ought reasonably to have had the authority to pursue the claim, which was, at the very earliest, upon the bankruptcy of e3m in January 2015.
 [53]      Under this analysis, s. 5(1)(a)(iv) is not engaged. The question is not whether the appellants knew or ought to have known that a proceeding by the company would be an appropriate remedy for Goldberg’s alleged wrongs. Until they had control over the claim, or the means to obtain such control (by moving promptly in e3m’s bankruptcy), they were not “claimants” for the purpose of s. 5(1)(a) and therefore their knowledge was not the knowledge of claimants under the section.

Ontario: the Court of Appeal leaves determining who discovers a corporation’s claim to another day

In Service Mold + Aerospace Inc. v. Khalaf, the Court of Appeal confronted the question of whose knowledge informs the s. 5 analysis when the plaintiff is a corporation, but without answering it.  This was the second time in 2019 that a court acknowledged that this remains unresolved without resolving it.

[28]      In appealing this finding, the appellant bank focused primarily on its claim that the motion judge erred in principle by using Mr. Schuurman’s abilities and circumstances, instead of those of the corporations. It argues that since the claim belongs to the corporate plaintiffs, the s. 5(1)(b) test should have focused on their abilities and circumstances, not Mr. Schuurman’s.

 [29]      I need not resolve this issue because […].
 The Court also overturned the motion judge’s s. 5 analysis on the basis that it ignored the objective component of the modified-objective test.  It’s a very good critique, and provides a helpful list of the considerations that might inform the test’s application:

[29]      […] in my view, the motion judge clearly erred in applying the modified objective test by conducting a purely subjective inquiry. Rather than imbuing the hypothetical reasonable person with the abilities and circumstances of Mr. Schuurman, she imparted on that person the attitudes and practices of Mr. Schuurman, thereby defeating the objective reasonableness inquiry.

 [30]      She said:
 The reasonable person standard is to be applied taking into account the “abilities” and the “circumstances of the person with the claim”. It seems to me that when the “reasonable person” standard in the context of s. 5(1)(b) is applied in this case, the circumstances of Mr. Schuurman include the organization of his business at the time of the fraud. The organization of the business, and particularly the bookkeeping part of that business, lacked a segregation of duties. Without a segregation of duties as described by Ms. Grogan, the plaintiffs were vulnerable to bookkeeper fraud. To put the analysis another way, the “abilities and circumstances’” of Mr. Schuurman included his overly trusting, perhaps gullible nature and his resultant vulnerability.

[31]      First, an issue in the case was whether the respondent corporations failed to know what they ought to have known, because the bookkeeping part of their business was not monitored as it reasonably should have been. The motion judge begged that question by assuming that a reasonable person would have the same bookkeeping practices as the respondent corporations had. Simply put, in identifying the “circumstances of the person” that the reasonable person will share with the plaintiff, it is an error in principle to infer that the reasonable person would conduct itself in the same way that the plaintiff did. To do so is to eviscerate the objective component of the test. That is what the motion judge did here.

 [32]      Second, s. 5(1)(b) is about knowing what one ought to know. In context, the reasonable person component of s. 5(1)(b) serves to ensure that the plaintiff acted with reasonable levels of prudence and attention in attending to the risk of injury, loss or damage. Because the objective component of the test is modified, the degree of prudence and attention that can reasonably be expected will vary among persons with claims, according to their abilities and circumstances – things such as level of intelligence, education, experience, resources, health, power imbalances, dependence, and situational pressures or distractions that might bear on the ability to appreciate what is happening. It is imperative to remember, however, notwithstanding that the term “abilities” may be wide when viewed in isolation, s. 5(1)(b) requires that once material characteristics are attributed to the reasonable person, that hypothetical person will remain reasonable. If the hypothetical person is imbued with unreasonable imprudence or inattention the objective component of the test is defeated, and only one result can obtain.

Ontario: the Court of Appeal on adding a new claim

In Klassen v. Beausoleil, the Court of Appeal provides a helpful summary of the analysis for determining whether proposed amendments assert a fundamentally new claim:

(1)         The test to be applied

[24]      I begin with the text of r. 26.01 of the Rules. It provides:

On motion at any stage of an action the court shall grant leave to amend a pleading on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment. [Emphasis added.]

[25]      The rule is framed in mandatory terms: the court must allow the amendment, unless the responding party would suffer non-compensable prejudice, the proposed pleading is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or the proposed pleading fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action: 158844 Ontario Ltd v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2017 ONCA 42 (CanLII), 135 O.R. (3d) 681, at para. 25; Iroquois Falls Power Corp. v. Jacobs Canada Inc., 2009 ONCA 517 (CanLII), 264 O.A.C. 220, at paras. 15-16.

[26]      The expiry of a limitation period is one form of non-compensable prejudice. A party cannot circumvent the operation of a limitation period by amending their pleadings to add additional claims after the expiry of the relevant limitation period: Frohlick v. Pinkerton Canada Ltd, 2008 ONCA 3 (CanLII), 88 O.R. (3d) 401, at para. 24; 1100997 Ontario Ltd. v. North Elgin Centre Inc., 2016 ONCA 848 (CanLII), 409 D.L.R. (4th) 382, at paras. 21-23; United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 175 Region 6 v. Quality Meat Packers Holdings Limited, 2018 ONCA 671 (CanLII), at paras. 64; Davis v. East Side Mario’s Barrie, 2018 ONCA 410 (CanLII), at paras. 31-32. In this regard, the “addition of new statute-barred claims by way of an amendment is conceptually no different than issuing a new and separate Statement of Claim that advances a statute-barred claim” (emphasis added): Quality Meat Packers, at para. 64; citing Frohlick, at para. 24.

[27]      An amendment will be statute-barred if it seeks to assert a “new cause of action” after the expiry of the applicable limitation period: North Elgin, at paras. 19-23, 33; Quality Meat Packers, at para. 65. In this regard, the case law discloses a “factually oriented” approach to the concept of a “cause of action” – namely, “a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person”: North Elgin, at para. 19; Quality Meat Packers, at para. 65.

[28]      An amendment does not assert a new cause of action – and therefore is not impermissibly statute-barred – if the “original pleading … contains all the facts necessary to support the amendments … [such that] the amendments simply claim additional forms of relief, or clarify the relief sought, based on the same facts as originally pleaded”: Dee Ferraro, at paras. 4, 13-14; North Elgin Centre Inc., at paras. 20-21; East Side Mario’s Barrie, at paras. 31-32; Quality Meat Packers, at para. 65. Put somewhat differently, an amendment will be refused when it seeks to advance, after the expiry of a limitation period, a “fundamentally different claim” based on facts not originally pleaded: North Elgin, at para. 23.

[29]      The relevant principle is summarized in Paul M. Perell & John W. Morden, The Law of Civil Procedure in Ontario, 3rd ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2017), at p. 186:

A new cause of action is not asserted if the amendment pleads an alternative claim for relief out of the same facts previously pleaded and no new facts are relied upon, or amount simply to different legal conclusions drawn from the same set of facts, or simply provide particulars of an allegation already pled or additional facts upon [which] the original right of action is based.[2]

[30]      In the course of this exercise, it is important to bear in mind the general principle that, on this type of pleadings motion, it is necessary to read the original Statement of Claim generously and with some allowance for drafting deficiencies: Farmers Oil and Gas Inc. v. Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources), 2016 ONSC 6359 (CanLII), 134 O.R. (3d) 390 (Div. Ct.), at para. 23.

[31]      Finally, the court may refuse an amendment where it would cause non-compensable prejudice. The prejudice must flow from the amendment and not some other source: Iroquois Falls, at para. 20. At some point the delay in seeking an amendment will be so lengthy, and the justification so inadequate, that prejudice to the responding party is presumed. In this event, the onus to rebut the presumed prejudice lies with the moving party: State Farm, at para. 25.

[32]      Alternatively, the responding party may resist the amendment by proving actual prejudice – i.e. by leading evidence that the responding party has lost an opportunity in the litigation that cannot be compensated by an adjournment or an award of costs as a consequence of the amendment. It is incumbent on the responding party to provide specific details of the alleged prejudice: State Farm, at para. 25.

[33]      Irrespective of the form of prejudice alleged, there must be a causal connection between the non-compensable prejudice and the amendment. The prejudice must flow from the amendment and not from some other source: State Farm, at para. 25.

[34]      Bearing in mind these principles, the framework to determine the issues raised by this appeal is as follows:

  •     Are the proposed amendments to assert a claim to a 33% ownership interest the assertion of a “new cause of action”? If the proposed amendments are the assertion of a new cause of action, are the amendments statute-barred?

  •     Irrespective of the above, is this a case where non-compensable prejudice will arise as a consequence of the amendments?

Ontario: contract repudiation and the commencement of time

 

The Court of Appeal decision in Hurst v. Hancock is a reminder that in a claim arising from anticipatory breach or repudiation of a contract, the limitation period may not commence until performance is due.  There can no be no claim until there is a cause of action, and there will be no cause of action until claimant accepts the breach, or affirms the contract and performance is due.

Ontario: Court of Appeal on rolling limitation periods and contractual limitation periods

The Court of Appeal decision in Marvelous Mario’s Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. is a noteworthy addition to “rolling limitation period” jurisprudence.

The appellants sought coverage under the business interruption cover of a commercial insurance policy issued by the respondent.  The policy contained a contractual limitation period:

ACTION: Every action or proceeding against the insurer for the recovery of any claim under or by virtue of this contract is absolutely barred unless commenced within one year next after the loss or damage occurs.

The trial judge held that the claim for business interruption losses was an ongoing claim and subject to a rolling limitation period.  The appellants discovered it on a date more than a year before commencing the coverage action.  However, it was subject to a rolling limitation period, a new claim accrued each day the appellant sustained a business interruption loss.  Those days within a year of the action give rise to timely claims.

The Court of Appeal rejected this reasoning.  First, it considered the nature of a rolling limitation period:

[35]      The jurisprudence suggests that a rolling limitation period may apply in a breach-of-contract case in circumstances where the defendant has a recurring contractual obligation. The question is not whether the plaintiff is continuing to suffer a loss or damage, but whether the defendant has engaged in another breach of contract beyond the original breach by failing to comply with an ongoing obligation. In cases where there have been multiple breaches of ongoing obligations, it is equitable to impose a rolling limitation period.

Second, it found that the trial judge erred by considering whether the appellants were continuing to suffer damages rather than whether the respondent was breaching a recurring contractual obligation:

[37]      In my view, where the trial judge erred was in focussing her analysis on the question of whether the appellants were continuing to suffer damages rather than on the issue of whether the respondent had a recurring contractual obligation. Unlike Pickering Square, where the tenant had a recurring obligation to occupy the premises every month during the term of the lease, the respondent was not obliged to make recurring payments. Rather, the policy covered business interruption losses and the respondent was obliged to pay those losses in their totality, subject to any limits in the policy. The fact that there was a 24-month cap on the business interruption losses does not convert the respondent’s obligation to indemnify into a recurring contractual obligation. Therefore, this was not a proper case for the application of a rolling limitation period.

[38]      The appellants knew as of the closing date for the sale of the businesses that they no longer had the assets under their control and that consequently they would thereafter suffer business interruption losses. While the precise amount of the damages was unknown, the appellants knew at that point that they had suffered loss or damage and under the policy they were obliged to commence a claim within one year. The fact that the extent of damages may not be known with precision does not stop the commencement of the limitation period: Peixeiro v. Haberman, 1997 CanLII 325 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 549, at para. 18. The Second Action was consequently time-barred in its entirety.

This reasoning raises some interesting issues (which, I note sheepishly, I missed entirely when writing about the trial decision).

First, a word on the “rolling limitation period”.  The court’s language suggests that it’s an equitable principle: “In cases where there have been multiple breaches of ongoing obligations, it is equitable to impose a rolling limitation period”.  This isn’t quite right.

Statutory limitation periods apply to causes of action.  Subject to certain exceptions, one limitation period applies to one cause of action (in the case of the Limitations Act, one basic and one ultimate limitation period apply to one “claim”, which derives from a cause of action).

When there are circumstances that cause multiple causes of action to accrue periodically, one limitation period applies to each cause of action.  In the case of a contractual obligation that recurs daily (the court’s example), each day the defendant fails to perform the obligation a discrete breach of contract occurs that gives rise to a discrete cause of action.  Each discrete cause of action has its own limitation period.

Because these limitation periods have the same length, it will appear as if one limitation period commences anew each day,  The limitation period appears to roll.  This is the “rolling limitation period”.

A rolling limitation period is accordingly just convenient way to describe multiple limitation periods of the same length commencing regularly and consecutively.  It’s not a special kind of limitation period that exists independently of the statutory limitation scheme to be invoked as equity requires.

On my reading, the Court’s analysis is correct.  The Court found there was one cause of action that accrued on a particular date. There were no multiple causes of action, and there were accordingly no multiple limitation periods that could appear to roll.

All of this is to say that I question the value of the “rolling limitation period” in limitations analyses.  What purpose does it actually serve?  Instead of asking whether there is a rolling limitation period, you might just as easily, and certainly more accurately, ask whether there are recurring causes of action.

Now for the second issue: I’m doubtful cause of action accrual, or causes of action generally, had any place in the parties’ limitations analysis.

The limitation period is contractual.  It reflects the parties’ agreement on when the insured can sue the insurer.

The limitation period commences on the occurrence of the “loss or damage” and bars “absolutely” an action “against the insurer for the recovery of any claim” under the policy (that is, a claim for indemnification).

The triggering event is not the accrual of a cause of action, but the occurrence of the “loss or damage” for which the insured claims indemnification.  I suspect the policy provided coverage for some business interruptions that don’t arise from actionable misconduct.  This means the insured could seek recovery for a claim for indemnification of a loss that has nothing to do with a cause of action.

This makes it bewildering that the parties appear to have agreed that common law discovery applied to this limitation period

As I read the provision, its language excludes discoverability of any kind. The limitation period commences on the date of an event—the occurrence of loss or damage—and expires absolutely one year later.  The word “absolutely” would seem an explicit bar to discoverability or the suspension of time.  If the parties intended for discoverability to apply, they could have used language like “…unless commenced within one year next after the insured could first reasonably have learned of the loss or damage”.

It’s also impossible to apply common law discovery to a limitation period that commences on the date of an event rather than on the accrual of a cause of action.  Discovery is of a cause of action: the rule provides that a cause of action accrues when a plaintiff can first reasonably discover its material facts.  This is why the rule doesn’t apply to statutory limitation periods that commence on the date of an event (like s. 38 of the Trustee Act) .

Further, discovery is always in relation to the cause of action that gives rise to the proceeding.  In this case, the cause of action giving rise to the proceeding was the breach of the insurance agreement, and this is the cause of action to which the contractual limitation period applies.  The discovery of some of other cause of action that may have resulted in the event that is the trigger of the limitation period wouldn’t in the normal course be material to the commencement of time.  It’s so unusual for the limitation of one cause of action to be determined by the accrual of another cause of action that if the parties intended this to be so I’d expect explicit language to that effect in their agreement (I’ve never seen such language).

More generally, because this is a contractual limitation period, the parties ought to have grounded their positions in the language of the policy.  The material question strikes me as being whether the “loss or damage” occurred within the meaning of the policy each day the business interruption lasted, or on the date of the event that caused the business interruption.  This is a question of policy interpretation.

Without having read the policy, I see arguments on both sides.  I think the strongest argument is the one the court accepted.  The day of the peril that caused the business interruption—the transaction—caused the appellants to suffer the “loss or damage” for which they sought indemnification.  That the interruption lasted days goes to quantifying the loss, not when it occurred.  I would think the appellants’ notification would have been helpful; it’s easy to imagine that the appellants filed one notification in regards of the business interruption, which might have indicated they considered there to be one loss. I’m not sure why this didn’t appear to be part of the record.

The counterargument is that each day of business interruption was a new occurrence of loss.  This is effectively the rolling limitation period argument, except not one based on cause of action accrual.

I welcome your thoughts on this!

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario: Court of Appeal limits the impact of knowledge of a debtor’s assets on the limitation of foreign judgment proceedings

Endean v. St. Joseph’s General Hospital considers the impact of knowledge of a debtor’s exigible assets in the limitation of foreign judgment recognition proceedings.

The appellant obtained a default judgment against the respondent in a South Carolina court. The appellant commenced an Ontario action more than two years later to recognise and enforce the default judgment.  Twelve days later, the appellant secured an ex parte Mareva injunction against the respondent.  The respondent then obtained an order setting aside the Mareva injunction and holding that the appellant had commenced the Ontario action outside the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision.  It was legally appropriate for the appellant to commence his proceeding after the time to appeal the South Caroling judgment had expired.  The appellant’s subjective knowledge of whether the respondent had exigible assets in Ontario did not impact on the commencement of time.  This is perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Court of Appeal’s decision because it suggests that knowledge of a judgment debtor’s assets in Ontario won’t materially impact on the limitations analysis outside of unusual circumstances:

[55]      Now suppose the plaintiff settled with B before trial. In the Pierringer Order situation, the plaintiff reduces their recovery from A (who did not settle) by the amount it is determined that B is at fault. At trial, A and B are each found to be 50% at fault. The plaintiff reduces their claim against A by the amount of fault attributed to B. A’s net payment is the same 50%.

The Pierringer Order in the Hearsey Action Did Not Authorize Reduction of Recovery Due to Fault of Persons Other Than the Oral Surgeons

[56]      The Pierringer Order in the Hearsey Action is similar to the example above in so far as the hospital and the oral surgeons were concerned. For ease of reference, that Pierringer Order is attached as ‘Schedule A’ to these reasons. The hospital’s cross-claim against the oral surgeons in the Hearsey Action had been made so that the hospital could obtain indemnity from the oral surgeons if it was obliged to pay the plaintiff’s full damages. To the extent fault was attributed to the oral surgeons, the hospital could recover indemnity from them and thus reduce its net out of pocket expenditure. The Pierringer Order dismissed the cross-claim of the hospital against the oral surgeons. It did not prejudice the hospital by doing so, as it required the Hearsey appellants to reduce their claim against the hospital by the amount of fault that would be apportioned at trial to the oral surgeons, and it provided procedures whereby that determination could be made at trial. If that was all the Pierringer Order in the Hearsey Action did, it would meet the objectives generally ascribed to a Pierringer Order discussed above.

[57]      However, the effect the hospital argues for goes much further. According to the hospital, the effect of the Pierringer Order was to also reduce the Hearsey appellants’ recovery from the hospital by the amount of fault the trial judge might attribute to the manufacturer and the distributor. These were entities against whom the hospital had not claimed indemnity under the Negligence Act, and from whom the hospital had no practical ability to recover indemnity even if claimed. The Pierringer Order, if so interpreted, would do more than maintain a level playing field for the hospital compared to its pre-Order position. The effect of the interpretation the hospital seeks is to put the hospital in a better position than it was in before the Pierringer Order. Before the Pierringer Order, the hospital was at risk, if found at fault to any degree, to pay all of the Hearsey appellants’ damages without the ability to obtain indemnity from the manufacturer and distributor. This risk was on the hospital, regardless of the degrees of fault of the concurrent tortfeasors. As interpreted by the hospital, the Pierringer Order would free the hospital of that risk. The hospital would be placed in as good a position as it would have been had it claimed indemnity from the manufacturer and distributor and had the manufacturer and distributor been creditworthy and able to pay indemnity, rather than being bankrupt. No reason why this should be the case was suggested.

[58]      The Pierringer Order’s language, including that incorporated into the amended statement of claim, does not, taken as a whole, support this broader interpretation. Paragraph 5 of the Pierringer Order provides that the “Plaintiffs will only claim from the Defendant Hospital those damages, if any, arising from the actions or omissions of the Defendant Hospital”, and refers to the “Defendant Hospital’s several liability, or proportionate share of joint liability, as may be proven against it at trial”. But that must be read in light of the context and the other provisions of the Pierringer Order, which demonstrate that this was only intended to ensure the Hearsey appellants’ claim and recovery from the hospital did not include anything for the fault that may be attributed to the oral surgeons.

[59]      The Pierringer Order was made in the context of an action that included the oral surgeons and the hospital as defendants — no one else. It was made in the context of a settlement by the appellants with the oral surgeons against whom the hospital had cross-claimed. It dismissed the hospital’s cross-claim against the oral surgeons. It expressly provided that the court at trial may apportion fault among “all Defendants named in the Statement of Claim” (emphasis added), which meant only the hospital and the oral surgeons. It did not refer to apportionment of fault to anyone else. And it provided procedures, including for the obtaining and use of evidence from and about the oral surgeons, clearly aimed at assisting the parties to present their cases on what fault should be apportioned to the oral surgeons. It provided no similar procedures regarding the fault of any other entities.

Ontario: Court of Appeal continues to disagree about limitations analyses (and clarifies that fraudulent concealment doesn’t apply to s. 5)

 

It’s not often that the Court of Appeal disagrees on a limitations issues (or at least until recently when there have been a number of dissents in limitations decisions), and it’s especially rare that the Court disagrees about whether there have been errors of fact.  That’s what make Zeppa v. Woodbridge Heating & Air-Conditioning Ltd. interesting.  Justice Brown, with Justice Strathy concurring, disagreed with Justice Feldman about what facts were necessary for the plaintiff to know that the defendant HVAC installer had caused or contributed to a faulty HVAC system.   

The motion judge found that problems with the HVAC system were necessarily the result of the defendants’ act or omissions because the defendant installed it:

It is crystal clear from these reports, as well as Christopher’s Examination, that the Plaintiffs knew long before February 2010 that the HVAC system was not functioning properly. Woodbridge was clearly responsible since they had installed the system…

Justice Brown did not find any error with this reasoning:

[46]      Unlike my colleague, I see no error in the factual findings that would justify appellate intervention. The motion judge did not misapprehend the evidence. His findings were solidly grounded in the record before him. Accordingly, I would not give effect to this ground of appeal.

However, Justice Feldman didn’t agree that it necessarily followed from the fact of the HVAC problems that the defendant had caused or contributed to them:

[92]      The motion judge found, at para. 33, that “it was not necessary for Christopher to have knowledge of the fact that the Quietside boilers were installed improperly in order for the limitation period to commence running. What was needed was knowledge, actual or imputed, that he had a “claim” against Woodbridge.” This was a legal error.

[93]      In the circumstances of this case, knowledge of the improper installation was an essential element of discoverability of the appellants’ claims for negligence and breach of contract.

[95]      Until Woodbridge’s improper installation was revealed, the Zeppas knew that the system had many problems, but they did not know that the problems were caused by the act of improper installation by the respondent. They did not know of any act or omission by Woodbridge or the day it occurred.

[96]      In fact, when the Zeppas first came to Woodbridge with complaints, Woodbridge informed them that the problems with the system were due to lack of maintenance. There were no problems with the HVAC system itself and no suggestion that the problem was caused by improper installation. On the basis of Woodbridge’s assurances, the Zeppas entered into a two-year maintenance agreement. This cost them approximately $4600.

[97]      However, Woodbridge knew that maintenance would never fix the HVAC system. Woodbridge concealed the fact that its faulty installation of the boilers was the central cause of the Zeppas’ problems. Until Quietside revealed that fact to the Zeppas, Woodbridge’s fraudulent concealment prevented the Zeppas from knowing whom to hold responsible for the damage to their family home and why.

[99]      If the action had been pleaded as a breach of an implied warranty, or if Woodbridge had provided an explicit warranty, the Zeppas’ knowledge that the HVAC system was not working properly may have been sufficient to trigger the running of the limitation period. But that is not the claim here.

[100]   Problems that can be resolved through maintenance are not necessarily caused by the acts or omissions of the installer. The motion judge’s finding that the Zeppas’ problems were clearly caused by Woodbridge’s acts or omissions was not based on any evidence other than the fact that there were ongoing problems with the HVAC system. He treated the cause of action as if it were for breach of warranty and not for negligence or breach of contract in the installation of the system.

[101]   Mr. Zeppa first contacted Quietside because he had heard that its boilers were terrible and that was why Quietside was no longer operating in Canada, i.e. the boilers had a possible manufacturing defect or were inherently faulty. When he asked the manufacturer for assistance, Quietside responded to his inquiries with the letter that revealed Woodbridge’s faulty installation of the boilers and Woodbridge’s knowledge that its faulty installation was the cause of the problems.

[103]   Mr. Zeppa’s evidence demonstrates why knowledge that the HVAC system was not working properly was not enough to trigger the basic limitation period. In the face of Woodbridge’s assurances, Mr. Zeppa reasonably suspected that the boiler manufacturer may have been responsible for the HVAC problems. Woodbridge’s false assurances continued until late 2010.

I find Justice Feldman’s reasoning significantly more persuasive.  It’s not evident to me why the court considered it “crystal clear” that if the HVAC wasn’t working it was the installer’s fault.  Knowledge that the installation was faulty is not “the how it happened” that Justice Brown refers to (at para. 43) of his reasons, but prima facie knowledge of actionable conduct.  In the absence of prima facie knowledge that defendant at contributed to the loss, I don’t see how the plaintiff could have discovered the claim.  Perhaps there’s something in the record that explains this, but not on the face of the decision.

Two other aspects of the decision are noteworthy.

First, it reiterates that the principle of fraudulent concealment is not a consideration in a s. 5 analysis, a point on which the majority and the dissent agree.  This is because s. 5 achieves the same result:

[71]      The decisions in Dhaliwal and Kim, together with the plain language of ss. 4 and 5 of the Act, support the conclusion that there is no independent work for the principle of fraudulent concealment to perform in assessing whether a plaintiff has commenced a proceeding within the basic two-year limitation period. That is because the elements of the discoverability test set out in ss. 5(1)(a) and (b) address the situation where a defendant has concealed its wrong-doing. If a defendant conceals that an injury has occurred, or was caused by or contributed to by its act or omission, or that a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it, then it will be difficult for the defendant to argue that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of those facts until the concealed facts are revealed. Whether the plaintiff ought to have known of those matters, given their concealment, is a matter for inquiry under s. 5(1)(b).

[72]      If the defendant’s concealment of facts results in a lack of actual or objective knowledge by the plaintiff of the elements set out in s. 5(1)(a) of the Act, then the plaintiff does not discover his or her claim until the date the concealed facts are revealed to or known by the plaintiff, at which point time begins to run. That is to say, the analysis required by s. 5(1) of the Act captures the effect of a defendant’s concealment of facts material to the discovery of a claim.

Also note that this is now the leading description of the principle, as demonstrated by the Court’s reference to it in Endean.

Second, it contains a disappointing reference to Lawless:

[42]      As this court observed in Lawless, at para. 23, the question to be posed in determining whether a person has discovered a claim is whether the prospective plaintiff knows enough facts on which to base a legal allegation against the defendant. In support of that proposition, Lawless cited the decision of this court in McSween v. Louis (2000), 2000 CanLII 5744 (ON CA), 132 O.R. (3d) 304 (C.A.), where Feldman J.A., writing for the majority, stated, at para. 51:

The question to be posed when assessing discovery is when the plaintiff had knowledge of the discovery matters, not knowledge of the facts necessary for a legal allegation (which is the question required by common law discovery).  Nevertheless, the Court’s point regarding the amount of knowledge necessary to satisfy the discovery matters—prime facie knowledge—remains valid without reverting to common law discovery principles to describe discovery under s. 5.