The Ontario Superior Court, in Shublay v. Coachman Insurance, 2012 ONSC 5445, recently revisited the distinction between claims and causes of action in the context of a limitations defence.
The case arose from the escape of fuel oil in 2005 at the plaintiffs' home in Thunder Bay. The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to increase the amount of damages they were claiming for existing breach of contract and negligence claims, as well as to add claims for punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages. The issue before the courts was whether these amendments were barred by the Limitations Act, 2002 (the "Act"), since more than two years had passed since the cause of action was discovered.
The discussion revolved around the distinction between adding new causes of action, which are not permissible under the Act, and adding new claims, which are permissible under the Act. In this case, Justice Shaw relied on whether the facts, as originally pleaded, could support the new claims for relief or different legal conclusions.
This case highlights the importance of a party's statement of claim in defining the issues that will eventually go to trial. A statement of claim that is pleaded too narrowly can lead to the foreclosure of other avenues of recovery that are not originally contemplated. A statement of claim that is pleaded too broadly, however, can create very different problems, such as unnecessarily widening the scope (and, therefore, cost) of discovery.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
