Canada: The Revival Of Forum Shopping for Limitations Deadlines

Last Updated: June 26 2006

Article by Bryan Duguid, ©2006 Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

This article was originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Litigation - May 2006

Parties should exploit the strategic opportunities and be mindful of the potential pitfalls that arise from the double limitation period resulting from section 12 of the Alberta Limitations Act, section 27 of the Saskatchewan Limitations Act, and the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Castillo.

Limitations deadlines are unforgiving. If they are missed, the claim is extinguished. This raises important strategic considerations in connection with section 12 of the Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12 (Alberta Section 12) and the related decision released in late December 2005 by the Supreme Court of Canada in Castillo v. Castillo (Castillo). Alberta Section 12 states:

"Conflict of Laws ... 12 The limitations law of the Province shall be applied whenever a remedial order is sought in this Province, notwithstanding that, in accordance with conflict of law rules, the claim will be adjudicated under the substantive law of another jurisdiction."

As confirmed in Castillo, the effect of Alberta Section 12 is to provide, perhaps unexpectedly, a double-layered limitations defence to defendants in Alberta court proceedings that are governed by the substantive law of another jurisdiction. This represents a significant change in the rules for the choice of the limitations laws to be applied by the courts in Alberta and Saskatchewan, with ramifications beyond the borders of those provinces. (Although not identical to Alberta Section 12, to the same effect is section 27 of the Saskatchewan Limitations Act, S.S. 2004, c-L-16.1 (Saskatchewan Section 27), enacted relatively recently. Accordingly, this article applies equally to Saskatchewan Section 27 and Saskatchewan limitations laws.)


A key choice of law issue is whether a particular question is a matter of substantive law or procedural law and, related to this, the identification of the substantive laws that govern the merits of the dispute (the lex causae). The procedural laws that govern the process for a dispute are those of the jurisdiction in which the dispute is heard, whereas the lex causae may derive from a jurisdiction other than the venue for the proceedings.

Any review of the law in this area should include the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Tolofson v. Jensen (Tolofson). Before Tolofson, in general, limitations laws were classified as procedural in nature under Canadian private international law. As a result, generally, the limitations deadline for a claim was based on the limitations laws of the venue for the dispute. However, this categorization exercise was not certain – it depended upon whether the limitations deadline was characterized as merely barring a remedy or instead extinguishing the underlying right of action. In any event, this encouraged forum shopping by plaintiffs to commence action in the jurisdiction with the most favourable limitations deadline because, in some cases, a claim could be pursued in some jurisdictions but not in others. This meant that fundamentally inconsistent results could flow from any given claim, simply based on the choice of venue.

Tolofson was responsible for two main developments. First, the Supreme Court of Canada held that, generally, the substantive law governing a tort claim is to be the law of the place where the activity occurred (the lex loci delicti). Second, limitation periods are to be treated as matters of substantive (not procedural) law. As a result, in general, for law suits filed in a Canadian court, the applicable limitations deadline is set by the laws of the jurisdiction that govern the merits and substance of the dispute, even if that jurisdiction is a foreign jurisdiction or a province in Canada other than where the plaintiff chooses to file the claim.

The Castillo Decision

As was the case in Tolofson, Castillo involved a car crash. The accident occurred in California on May 10, 1998. Two years less a day later, on May 9, 2000, the plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim in Calgary. The defendant applied for summary dismissal of the claim on the basis that California law (including its limitations law) applied, such that the claim was barred by the one-year limitation period under California law.

In granting the application for summary dismissal, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench interpreted Alberta Section 12. Because the wrong occurred in California, Tolofson rendered applicable the one-year limitation deadline under California law. The Court found that Alberta Section 12 rendered also applicable the two-year limitation deadline under Alberta limitations law. The Court prescribed a twostep approach for matters in which the substantive law of the dispute is not Alberta. First, the Court must determine if there is a cause of action under the lex loci delicti (in this case, California law), including the limitations law of the foreign jurisdiction. Only if the answer to that question is affirmative does the Court proceed to the second step of the analysis based on Alberta Section 12, that is, whether the action is brought within the Alberta limitations deadline. In this particular case, since the cause of action was extinguished after one year under California law, that was the end of the inquiry. It was unnecessary to determine, based on Alberta Section 12, whether the action was brought within the Alberta limitations deadline.

This result and the two-step analysis were upheld by both the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Analysis And Strategic Considerations

Castillo means that, for cases filed in Alberta that are governed by the substantive laws of another jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claim will avoid extinguishment by limitations defence only if the claim has been filed in time to satisfy both the limitations law of Alberta and the other jurisdiction.

While, in his dissenting opinion in Castillo, Justice Bastarache of the Supreme Court of Canada stated that there does not seem to be any legislative purpose served by allowing a defendant always to benefit from the shortest of the limitation periods available under Alberta limitations laws and the applicable foreign laws, the legislative purpose seems clear. The purposes and policy underlying limitation periods in general include the goals of protecting defendants from unjust results which can occur where litigation is based on stale evidence, allowing defendants the opportunity to advance reasonable defences, and ensuring that defendants know within a reasonable time whether they will ultimately be free from claims. Viewed in this light, it is clear that the legislative purpose for Alberta Section 12 is to impose a double limitation period on extra-jurisdictional claims brought before the courts of Alberta to grant additional protection to defendants in such actions. This provides a home field advantage to Alberta corporations or residents that are defendants in Alberta law suits.

In some cases, a claim may be statute-barred if filed in Alberta, but not elsewhere. Of course, that would cause the plaintiff to avoid filing the lawsuit in Alberta, if possible. However, that may not be possible.

If the assets of the defendant(s) are located in Alberta, the plaintiff ultimately will need to enforce, in Alberta, any judgment of the courts of an alternate jurisdiction. As a result, because recognition and enforcement of judgment requires a real and substantial connection between the dispute and the jurisdiction in which the judgment is granted, practically speaking, the plaintiff will only be able to forum-shop to avoid Alberta if another jurisdiction has a real and substantial connection with the subject matter of the dispute. Even then, the defendant may be able to raise a successful challenge to the choice by the plaintiff of the alternate jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds, on the basis that Alberta is clearly the most appropriate forum for the dispute. (It should be noted that, in advancing such a forum challenge, the defendant would likely be faced with a persuasive response from the plaintiff that, if the plaintiff is forced to litigate in Alberta, it would lose a juridical advantage, precisely because of Alberta Section 12.) Accordingly, if there is no alternate jurisdiction that has a real and substantial connection with the subject matter of the dispute, or if Alberta is clearly the most appropriate forum for the dispute, the plaintiff will be forced to litigate in Alberta, with the resulting elimination of its claim through the operation of Alberta Section 12.

If the plaintiff is able to identify an alternate forum that has and will exercise jurisdiction over the dispute, the shorter limitation period prescribed by Alberta Section 12 could be avoided, and a judgment of the alternate court pursued. If judgment of the alternate jurisdiction’s court is obtained, the plaintiff could apply to have the judgment recognized and enforced in Alberta. However, the need for this additional step may provide additional defences or protections to the defendant. For instance, merely the added costs, delays and risks of the subsequent recognition and enforcement process may provide a useful practical or negotiating advantage to defendants with their assets located in Alberta. In addition, if the judgment of the alternate jurisdiction’s court is not for a certain sum of money (for instance, if it is a declaratory judgment), it is currently a live question, awaiting decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, as to whether a Canadian court will recognize and enforce that type of judgment (Pro Swing Inc. v. ELTA Golf Inc., appeal heard and reserved). For further discussion of the Pro Swing decision, please see Pro Swing Drives Foreign Judgments Forward, Blakes Bulletin on Intellectual Property, October 2005. Moreover, even if the jurisdiction had a real and substantial connection with the subject matter of the dispute, the Alberta courts will not recognize or enforce the judgment of the alternate jurisdiction if the judgment is inconsistent with the public policy of Alberta, or was obtained by fraud or in a manner inconsistent with the principles of natural justice (Beals v. Saldanha).

As a result, though an attentive plaintiff might attempt to take steps to keep a dated claim alive by choosing an alternate jurisdiction in which to sue, this may not be a straightforward and trouble-free exercise.

The effect of Alberta Section 12 is clear. In no case shall a defendant in an Alberta court action be required to defend a claim on its merits if the claim is not filed in time under the limitations laws of Alberta.

Accordingly, Alberta Section 12 (and Saskatchewan Section 27) creates various strategic considerations including:

One. Increased attention must be paid to the jurisdiction in which a party has been sued (for example, in Alberta as in most jurisdictions, limitations defences must be pled expressly) or the jurisdiction in which a party chooses to sue, to ensure that the limitation period ramifications are factored into the strategic choices available.

Two. For corporations wanting to capitalize on the added protection against litigation offered by Alberta Section 12, consideration might be given to incorporating in, moving to, or relocating assets to, Alberta.

Three. By contract, parties can agree to render Alberta Section 12 inapplicable. (Obviously, this option is not available for purely extra-contractual relationships and claims.)

Four. It is necessary to set up systems to identify potential claims and to investigate the claims as soon as possible, so that they can be filed in time. While this is always a prudent course of action, its importance increases in light of Alberta Section 12 and its double limitations firewall.


Alberta Section 12, Saskatchewan Section 27, and Castillo represent a change in the choice of law rules applicable to limitations deadlines for claims that arise in any jurisdiction outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan that are filed in the courts of those provinces. The statutory provisions provide added protection to defendants in such lawsuits. Parties should exploit the resulting strategic opportunities and be mindful of the potential pitfalls. 

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
26 Oct 2018, Other, Vancouver, Canada

Cybersecurity, including data privacy and security obligations, has become a critical chapter in every company’s risk management playbook.

30 Oct 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Please join us for discussions on recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits as well as employment law issues.

12 Nov 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Stories aren’t falsehoods. Stories are the root of all effective human communications: they motivate, animate and clarify. If you aren’t telling stories, you probably aren’t getting your point across.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions