Month: February 2024

Ontario: Court of Appeal sort of confirms Limitations Act applies to will challenges

The Court of Appeal decision in Shannon v. Hrabovsky is an unfortunate addition to limitations jurisprudence. Arguably, it stands for the principle that the basic limitation period applies to will challenge proceedings. An appellate court has never before considered the issue, and there is much to criticize about the few lower court decisions that Shannon cites in accepting, without consideration, that will challenge are subject to statutory limitation.

The applicant in Shannon successfully challenged the validity of a will. On appeal, the respondents argued that the application judge ought to have found the application statute-barred by the Limitations Act’s basic two-year limitation period. They sought leave to adduce fresh evidence to support their limitations defence. The appeal is really about the entitlement to adduce fresh evidence, not the limitation of will challenges, and so it’s arguable that the limitations analysis is obiter.

I wrote about the application decision here. I criticised its limitations and analysis and later Matthew Furrow and I published a paper arguing that applying statutory limitation periods to will challenges is ahistorical (it was uncontroversial that statutory limitation periods didn’t apply to will challenges from the date of reception until 2004), and requires taking an indefensibly flexible approach to the application of the s. 5 discovery provisions: see Will Challenges and the Limitations Act, 2002: A Reconsideration, 40 Est. Tr. & Pensions J. 190 (2020-2021). I also made the point more succintly in the fourth edition of the Law of Limitations:

The Act applies only to causes of action. A will challenge is not a cause of action; it is a contested proceeding to prove a will in solemn form. Section 2 of the Act limits its application to “claims” pursued in court proceedings.

 

Reformed limitations statutes apply to “claims” instead of causes of action. The “claim” converts every cause of action, for limitations purposes, into a single remedial unit comprised of two elements: actionable conduct and resulting loss. In doing so, it allows for a universal basic and ultimate limitation period with one set of accrual rules. However, as the Supreme Court of Canada observed in Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick, the distinction between the “claim” and the cause of action it derives from can be one without a difference. Simply, reformed limitations statutes continue to apply only to causes of action pursued in court proceedings. As a will challenge is not a cause of action, the current Act — and any other provincial act that applies to “claims” pursued in court proceedings—does not apply to it.

 

A will challenge is the square peg to the Act’s round hole. There are procedural issues. The expiry of a limitation period is an affirmative defence that a defendant/respondent must plead and prove. Yet the party challenging a will may be a plaintiff/applicant or a defendant/respondent depending on which method is used to bring the proceeding to court. There is no procedural mechanism for a plaintiff/applicant to plead a limitations defence.

 

There are discovery issues. Codified discovery is premised on a defendant committing actionable conduct — an “act or omission” — that causes damage to the plaintiff. A will challenge does not arise from actionable conduct. The absence of actionable conduct makes it impossible to identify the presumptive commencement of the basic limitation period and the ultimate limitation period because both run from the date of the actionable conduct. It also makes it impossible to obtain knowledge of three discovery matters: commission of actionable conduct by the person against whom the claim is made causing the plaintiff loss. As the Supreme Court of Canada formulated it in Grant Thornton, discovery requires knowledge of “the material facts upon which a plausible inference of liability on the defendant’s part can be drawn”. A will challenge does not result in a finding of anyone’s liability.

 

Shannon doesn’t address any of these issues. Because the parties agreed that the basic limitation period applies to will challenge (why the applicant conceded that point is mysterious), the Court of Appeal didn’t consider the correctness of this premise. Instead, its reasoning treats the application of the Limitations Act to will challenges as noncontroversial. This is disappointing. You can’t blame the court for not considering arguments the parties didn’t make, but you might hope that in engaging with the application of s. 5 to a will challenge there might have been some consideration given to whether the principles that originate in Leibel make sense, because they don’t.

Let’s take a look at the application judge’s analysis:

[20]      The application judge concluded:

In the present circumstances, Gayle had all the facts necessary to commence her application, on the grounds of both a lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, before the Testator’s death, with the exception of knowledge of the existence and contents of the 2007 Will. While she had suspicions that a will had been executed in 2007, she was never able to confirm its existence nor was she made aware of its contents until January 2015, after the date of death. Accordingly, Gayle has established that, on the date of the Testator’s death, when the act on which the claim is based occurred, being the effectiveness of the 2007 Will, she did not have knowledge of the existence and contents of the 2007 Will which are essential elements of her application. Gayle has therefore rebutted the presumption in section 5(2) that she had knowledge of the matters referred to in section 5(1)(a) on the day on which the act or omission on which her claim is based occurred. Gayle did not discover the claim in this application until sometime in January 2015, with the result that the two-year limitation period under the Act did not begin to run until that time. [Emphasis added.]

Just like in Leibel, this reasoning only works at the most superficial level. If the testator’s death is the act on which the applicant’s claim is based, it means that to discover the claim, the applicant required knowledge “that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is made”–in other words that the respondents committed the act of the testator’s death. That’s absurd. At risk of belabouring the point, this a symptom of the fundamental problem: a will challenge isn’t based on any actionable conduct and it doesn’t seek an in personem remedy against an individual. It has never been subject to statutory limitation (and, I’d argue, equitable limitation) because it is not a creature of the common law or equity, but canon law.

In sum, please hire me to argue this point.

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.