{"id":1013,"date":"2020-04-16T14:44:39","date_gmt":"2020-04-16T18:44:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=1013"},"modified":"2020-04-29T09:14:23","modified_gmt":"2020-04-29T13:14:23","slug":"ontario-court-of-appeal-on-the-limitation-of-continuing-oppressive-conduct","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/?p=1013","title":{"rendered":"Ontario: Court of Appeal on the limitation of continuing oppressive conduct"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Court of Appeal decision in Zhao v. Li<\/em><\/a> considers the limitation of continuing oppressive conduct.\u00a0 It holds sensibly that discrete oppressive acts give rise to discrete claims (subject to discrete limitation periods):<\/p>\n

\n

[<\/a>28]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Maurice<\/em>\u00a0stands 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.<\/p>\n

\u00a0[<\/a>29]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Although not expressly stated in\u00a0Maurice<\/em>, 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.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(ii)\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Is this a case alleging singular discrete oppressive acts?<\/div>\n

[<\/a>30]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In my view, the approach in\u00a0Maurice<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>applies because, as was the case there, what is alleged here are singular discrete oppressive acts, rather than \u201congoing oppression\u201d. I reach that conclusion for the following reasons.<\/p>\n

[<\/a>31]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0A 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.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
[<\/a>32]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0These 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\u00a0Maurice<\/em>\u00a0points out, conduct may consist of singular discrete acts of oppression even where \u00a0the later oppressive conduct was based on or in furtherance of the earlier oppressive conduct: at paras. 3 and 48-54.<\/div>\n

[<\/a>36]\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0[…] 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\u00a0Maurice<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>provides: \u201cCourts 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\u201d: at para. 49.<\/p>\n

[<\/a>37]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Nor is the limitation period extended because a complainant hopes that the oppression will be remedied:\u00a0Maurice<\/em>, at paras.\u00a046-49<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There is perhaps an easier of way of approaching the issue.\u00a0\u00a0 If there is a discrete cause of action, there is a discrete claim.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The basic limitation period will apply to each claim independent of the others.\u00a0 This analysis applies equally to any misconduct that is continuing.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court of Appeal decision in Zhao v. Li considers the limitation of continuing oppressive conduct.\u00a0 It holds sensibly that discrete oppressive acts give rise to discrete claims (subject to discrete limitation periods): [28]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Maurice\u00a0stands for the proposition that where what is complained of is a series of singular discrete acts of oppression over a … Continue reading Ontario: Court of Appeal on the limitation of continuing oppressive conduct<\/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":[87,582,43,86,68],"class_list":["post-1013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontario","tag-discoverability","tag-ontario-business-corporations-act-s-248","tag-ontario-court-of-appeal","tag-oppression","tag-oppression-remedy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1013","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1013"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1013\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1062,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1013\/revisions\/1062"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/limitations.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}