{"id":551,"date":"2017-02-18T00:12:50","date_gmt":"2017-02-18T04:12:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=551"},"modified":"2017-02-18T00:12:50","modified_gmt":"2017-02-18T04:12:50","slug":"ontario-r-21-motions-and-limitation-defences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=551","title":{"rendered":"Ontario: r. 21 motions and limitation defences"},"content":{"rendered":"

Can you bring a r. 21 motion to strike a claim as statute-barred before delivering a statement of defence? Yes, the Divisional Court confirmed in Amrane v. York University<\/a>, but only where it is plain and obvious that the plaintiff could assert no additional facts that would alter the limitations analysis:<\/p>\n

\n

[<\/a>14]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 I agree with the motion judge that the expiry of a limitation period is normally a defence that must be pleaded. However, as the Court of Appeal recognized in Beardsley v. Ontario<\/i>, 2001 CarswellOnt. 4137<\/span> at para. 21<\/span>, in those cases where it is plain and obvious from a review of the claim that no additional facts could be asserted that would alter the conclusion that a limitation period had expired, it would be unduly technical to require the delivery of a statement of defence.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

See also\u00a0this summary from\u00a0Justice Stinson’s decision in Clark v. Ontario (Attorney General)<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

[<\/a>12]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 By way of response the plaintiffs argue that, save in exceptional cases (of which this is not one) courts do not entertain motions to decide limitation period issues prior to service of a statement of defence. In any event, they further contend, there are live factual issues that bear on the limitation issue, which are expressly raised in the statement of claim and preclude determination of the question on a pleadings-based motion such as this.<\/p>\n

[<\/a>13]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 Strong authority for the former proposition can be found in Beardsley v. Ontario<\/i> Provincial Police<\/i> (2001), 2001 CanLII 8621 (ON CA)<\/a>,57 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.)<\/span><\/span> where the Court of Appeal stated as follows (at paras 21 and 22):<\/p>\n

[21]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 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 \u201craised by a pleading\u201d. The expiry of a limitation period does not render a cause of action a nullity; rather, it is a defence and must be pleaded. Although we agree that it would be unduly technical to require delivery of a statement of defence in circumstances where it is plain and obvious from a review of a statement of claim that no additional facts could be asserted that would alter the conclusion that a limitation period had expired [for example expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Highway Traffic Act<\/a><\/i> \u2026 in connection with a claim for property damage only, in circumstances where it is clear the discoverability rule does not apply] , a plain reading of the rule requires that the limitation period be pleaded in all other cases. See Pollakis v. Corner<\/i> (1975), 1975 CanLII 597 (ON SC)<\/a>, 9 O.R. (2d) 691 (H.C.J.)<\/span><\/span>.<\/p>\n

[22]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 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. \u2026<\/p>\n

[<\/a>14]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 More recently, Brown J. observed in Portuguese Canadian Credit Union Ltd. v CUMIS General Insurance <\/i>(2010), 2010 ONSC 6107 (CanLII)<\/a>, 104 O.R. (3d) 16 (S.C.J.)<\/span><\/span> as follows (at para. 33):<\/p>\n

\u2026 I do not accept the submission of the Credit Union that its Rule 21 motion falls within the category of cases alluded to inBeardsley<\/i> “where it is plain and obvious from a review of a statement of claim that no additional facts could be asserted”. InBeardsley<\/i> the possibility of bringing a Rule 21.01(1)(a) motion before the close of pleadings was discussed in the context of a determination as to whether an action was statute-barred – for example, such as in cases where the injuries suffered in a car accident occurred on a date certain and nothing more could be said about that fact.\u00a0That type of case is a far cry from the complex claim asserted in this proceeding. [Footnote omitted.]<\/p>\n

[<\/a>15]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 In Canadian Real Estate Assn. v. American Home Assurance Co.,<\/i> 2015 ONCA 389 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a><\/span> (at para. 2) the Court of Appeal again reminded us that \u201cthe exception in Beardsley <\/i>\u2026 must be confined to cases that involve no legal or factual complexities.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Can you bring a r. 21 motion to strike a claim as statute-barred before delivering a statement of defence? Yes, the Divisional Court confirmed in Amrane v. York University, but only where it is plain and obvious that the plaintiff could assert no additional facts that would alter the limitations analysis: [14]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 … Continue reading Ontario: r. 21 motions and limitation defences<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[190,191,303,314,313],"class_list":["post-551","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontario","tag-civil-procedure","tag-limitations-motions","tag-ontario-divisional-court","tag-read-the-rules","tag-rule-21"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/551","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=551"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/551\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":552,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/551\/revisions\/552"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}