In Fennell v. Deol, the Court of Appeal clarified the role due diligence plays in the discovery analysis. It’s a fact that informs the analysis, but not a separate and independent reason for dismissing a plaintiff’s claim as statute-barred.
Fennell was in a motor vehicle accident with the defendants. He claimed against the defendant Shergill, and subsequently amended the statement of claim to add the defendant Deol. Shergill served a statement of defence and crossclaim against Deol. Deol moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim on the basis of an expired limitation period.
Fennell argued that he discovered his claim when he received a medical report and learned that he met the Insurance Act threshold. Justice Akhtar noted that Fennell’s discovery testimony indicated awareness of the seriousness of his injuries before receiving the report. For Fennell to rely on discoverability to delay the commencement of the limitation period, Justice Akhtar held that he had to show due diligence in discovering his claim. Fennell did not show sufficient due diligence, and had he acted diligently, he would have discovered his claim when he commenced his action against Shergill. Justice Akhtar dismissed Fennell’s claim.
The Court of Appeal allowed Fennell’s appeal. Justice Akhtar made a counting error (which is very easy for lawyers to do when it comes to limitations, and here I speak from ample experience). If Fennell ought to have discovered his claim against Deol when he sued Shergill, the claim against Deol was in fact timely.
What makes Justice van Rensburg’s decision interesting is her discussion of Justice Akhtar’s error in focussing primarily on whether Fennell exercised due diligence, and in concluding that Fennel bore the onus to show due diligence to rebut the presumption that the limitation period ran from the date of the accident (the statutory presumption in s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act). To overcome the presumption, Fennell needed to prove only that he couldn’t reasonably have discovered that he met the statutory threshold on the date of the accident (s. 5(1)(b)), not that he exercised due diligence.
The fact that it wasn’t possible for Fennell to discover that he met the threshold on the date of the accident was enough to rebut the presumption.
Due diligence is the core of an analysis when determining whether to add a defendant to an action after the expiry of the presumptive limitation period (and then the threshold is low), but it is neither a standalone duty nor determinative of the section 5 discovery analysis:
 While due diligence is a factor that informs the analysis of when a claim ought to have reasonably been discovered, lack of due diligence is not a separate and independent reason for dismissing a plaintiff’s claim as statute-barred.
 Due diligence is not referred to in the Limitations Act, 2002. It is, however, a principle that underlies and informs limitation periods, through s. 5(1)(b). As Hourigan J.A. noted in Longo v. MacLaren Art Centre Inc., 2014 ONCA 526 (CanLII), 323 O.A.C. 246, at para. 42, a plaintiff is required to act with due diligence in determining if he has a claim, and a limitation period is not tolled while a plaintiff sits idle and takes no steps to investigate the matters referred to in s. 5(1)(a).
 Due diligence is part of the evaluation of s. 5(1)(b). In deciding when a person in the plaintiff’s circumstances and with his abilities ought reasonably to have discovered the elements of the claim, it is relevant to consider what reasonable steps the plaintiff ought to have taken. Again, whether a party acts with due diligence is a relevant consideration, but it is not a separate basis for determining whether a limitation period has expired.