Canada: A Refresher On Discoverability Principles

p>Several decisions were issued by the Ontario Court of Appeal over the last year regarding the discoverability principles under section 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002:[i]

5. (1) A claim is discovered on the earlier of,

  1. the day on which the person with the claim first knew,

    1. that the injury, loss or damage had occurred,
    2. that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission,
    3. that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is made, and
    4. that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it;
  2. the day on which a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the person with the claim first ought to have known of the matters referred to in clause (a).

(2) A person with a claim shall be presumed to have known of the matters referred to in clause (1) (a) on the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place, unless the contrary is proved.

While the determination of the starting point of a limitation period is very fact-specific and turns on the particular circumstances of each given case, some principles can be drawn from the various decisions of the Court of Appeal, and may assist plaintiffs in successfully resisting a limitation defence when the claim was issued outside the general two-year limitation period.

Discoverability: It Is Not About Due Diligence

As a general rule, the plaintiff must commence an action within two years of discovering his or her claim.[ii] Section 5(2) L.A. states that a plaintiff is presumed to have discovered his or her claim on the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place, unless the contrary is proven. This is where the discoverability principles come into play.[iii]

Recently, in Morrison v. Barzo,[iv] the Ontario Court of Appeal summarized the approach to be followed when considering discoverability. First, the plaintiff must rebut the presumption in section 5(2) L.A. that he or she knew of the matters referred to in section 5(1)(a) L.A. on the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place. The plaintiff only needs to prove that the actual discovery of the claim was not on the date the events giving rise to the claim took place. The plaintiff does not have to show due diligence. Second, the plaintiff must offer a reasonable explanation on proper evidence as to why the claim could not have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, in application of section 5(1)(b) L.A. The evidentiary threshold is low, and the plaintiff's explanation must be given a generous reading, and considered in the context of the claim.

As such, while due diligence is part of the evaluation of section 5(1)(b) L.A., it is not a separate basis for determining whether a limitation period has expired. This was reiterated in Har Jo Management Services Canada Ltd. v. York (Regional Municipality),[v] which related to two flooding incidents that occurred on May 21 and 28, 2013. The plaintiff did not discover the cause of the flooding incidents until June 28, 2013. The action was commenced on June 29, 2015, exactly two years later (June 28, 2015 was a Sunday). The motion judge[vi] held that the claim was out of time on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to exercise due diligence after June 28, 2013. The Court of Appeal disagreed:

"(...) Once a claim has been discovered, there is no ongoing duty on a plaintiff to further investigate the claim. Once the plaintiff has knowledge of its claim, then the limitation clock has begun running, and all the plaintiff is required to do is commence an action before the limitation period expires."[vii]

The two-year limitation period is, simply put, a time period by which the plaintiff must file a claim after he or she discovered (or ought to have discovered) the claim. The defendant cannot argue that the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence because the claim was filed on the eve of the two-year limitation period. The claim will still be considered within time.

Determining When the Claim Was Discovered: It Is Not Always an Easy Task

As mentioned above, the limitation period is presumed to start running on the day on which the act or omission took place (section 5(2) L.A.), unless the act or omission, injury or causation are discovered later. While this rule may seem easy to apply, the recent case Apotex Inc. v. Nordion (Canada) Inc.[viii] illustrates how difficult it may be to determine the starting point of the limitation period in a breach of contract case.

Apotex is a Canadian manufacturer of generic drugs. In order to sell a generic drug in the United States, a manufacturer must submit an abbreviated new drug application to the FDA to establish that its generic drug is bioequivalent to the patented drug. Apotex retained MDS in 2003 and 2004 to prepare bioequivalence studies to support applications to the FDA for the approval of two generic drugs.

Unbeknownst to Apotex, in July 2003, the FDA inspected MDS's Montreal facility and issued a notice expressing their concerns about potential contamination in the laboratory and about the storage and preservation of samples. The FDA did further inspections in September and October 2004, and continued to raise concerns. In January 2005, Apotex became aware of the issues with the FDA, but received reassurance from MDS, who advised that it had developed a five-year review plan to resolve all outstanding issues with the FDA. In the meantime, Apotex submitted its applications to the FDA for both generic drugs, supported by MDS's bioequivalence studies.

On March 24, 2006, the FDA issued a letter expressing concerns about the implementation and reporting associated with the five-year plan review. On April 1, 2006, MDS voluntarily closed its Montreal facility. On April 24, 2006, the FDA advised Apotex that its applications could not proceed until the concerns regarding MDS's facility were resolved. On May 8, 2006, Apotex acknowledged in an internal email that the approval of the two generic drugs by the FDA could be delayed. MDS subsequently attempted to address the FDA's concerns, to no avail. On December 11, 2006, the FDA verbally advised Apotex it would be necessary to repeat the studies done by MDS, re-analyze the samples, or have a third party auditor review and certify MDS's studies. On January 10, 2017, the FDA officially rejected MDS's studies.

Apotex commenced an action against MDS on November 10, 2008. MDS raised a limitation defence and argued that Apotex knew, as of January 2005, that there were issued with MDS's Montreal facility. The trial judge[ix] held instead that the breach, injury and causation were discovered on May 8, 2006 when Apotex first realized there could be a delay, which would result in lost profits. However, the trial judge also held that it would not have been appropriate for Apotex to have commenced a proceeding against MDS at that time, as it was more appropriate for Apotex to await the FDA's position regarding MDS's studies. The trial judge therefore concluded that the limitation period started running only on December 11, 2006 when Apotex was informed by the FDA that MDS's studies would not be accepted. As a result, the trial judge held that the claim issued on November 10, 2008 was not time-barred.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the claim was not time-barred, but disagreed with the manner in which the trial judge reached his conclusion, particularly his resort to section 5(1)(a)(iv) L.A. Justice Strathy, C.J.O., noted:

"(...) in many cases, the act or omission, causation, and the injury, loss or damage will occur simultaneously, and will be discovered simultaneously. But this will not always be the case. In some cases, discovery of the "act or omission" will not start the limitation period running unless injury, loss or damage has occurred and has been discovered."[x]

Based on the factual determinations made by the trial judge, the Court of Appeal held that the limitation period did not start running until December 11, 2006 when Apotex was first informed by the FDA that MDS's studies would be rejected. Until then, Apotex did not know of MDS's breaches of contract, and the injury had not yet manifested:

"As the trial judge found, (...) Apotex "was never in a position to assess whether the FDA's concerns involving the Montreal Facility directly impacted the Studies such that they would not be accepted by the FDA." That determination could only be made by the FDA, and Apotex's knowledge of this was necessarily contingent on communication from the FDA."[xi]

Beyond Discoverability: When It May Not Be Appropriate to Commence a Proceeding

In Apotex, the trial judge considered when it became appropriate for Apotex to commence a proceeding against MDS, in application of section 5(1)(a)(iv) L.A. The Court of Appeal concluded that it was not necessary to resort to section 5(1)(a)(iv) L.A. There are, however, other recent cases where the Court of Appeal specifically applied it. Section 5(1)(a)(iv) L.A. can have the effect of postponing the start date of the two-year limitation period beyond the date when the plaintiff discovers its claim, because of the defendant's actions.

a. When the Plaintiff Relied on the Superior Knowledge and Expertise of the Defendant

Resorting to legal action may not be appropriate when the plaintiff relied on the superior knowledge and expertise of the defendant, especially where the defendant undertook efforts to ameliorate the loss.

In Brown v. Baum,[xii] the Court of Appeal held that it would not have been appropriate for the plaintiff to commence an action in medical malpractice against a surgeon until a corrective surgery took place. A reasonable person would not have considered it appropriate to sue the surgeon while he was in the process of correcting his error and hopefully correcting or reducing the damage.

In Gillham v. Lake of Bays (Township),[xiii] Justice Roberts, J.A., noted that section 5(1)(a)(iv) L.A. deters needless litigation:

"The common law acknowledges that trivial damages do not trigger a limitation period, since a prudent plaintiff would not bring an action to recover a trivial loss."[xiv]

As such, even though the plaintiffs first became aware in 2009 that one of their cottage's deck piers had sunk, they were entitled to "wait-and-see" until a geotechnical engineer recommended to remove and reconstruct the deck in 2012. The fact that the general contractor had dismissed the sinking issues as "not serious" and had recommended to simply monitor the situation appeared to have been a key factor considered by the Court of Appeal.

The recent decision in Zeppa v. Woodbridge Heating & Air Conditioning Ltd.,[xv] is yet another example of what could constitute reliance on the defendant's superior knowledge and expertise. In that case, the Zeppas purchased an HVAC system from Woodbridge in 2006 and began experiencing significant issues with it immediately following its installation. Woodbridge attempted to solve the problem and in 2007, it suggested a two-year maintenance plan. The last time the HVAC system was serviced by Woodbridge was sometime during the Fall of 2009. The issues were never fixed. The Zeppas further investigated and on November 1, 2010, they were advised by the manufacturer that the HVAC system was incorrectly installed. They commenced the action on February 21, 2012.

Facing a motion for summary judgment, the Zeppas had to establish that the limitation period only started running on or after February 21, 2010. The motion judge[xvi] held that the Zeppas knew well before then that the HVAC system was not functioning properly. The Zeppas did not need to know the reason why in order to discover their claim against Woodbridge. The motion judge suggested that the Zeppas could reasonably maintain that they were relying on the superior knowledge and expertise of Woodbridge, and on the fact that Woodbridge was engaged in good faith efforts to remedy the concerns with the HVAC system, up until the Fall of 2009. However, the Zeppas stopped relying on Woodbridge to fix the issues afterwards. The motion judge therefore found the claim to be time-barred. The majority of the Court of Appeal confirmed all of the motion judge's findings, although Justice Feldman, J.A., dissented.

b. When an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Process Offers an Adequate Alternative Remedy and That Process Has Not Fully Run Its Course

In PQ Licensing S.A. v. LPQ Central Canada Inc.,[xvii] a dispute arose over the franchisee's purported rescission of its franchise agreement. On August 11, 2009, the franchisee delivered the notice of rescission. The franchise agreement provided for mandatory mediation and then arbitration of disputes. Regardless, more than two years later, on October 6, 2011, the franchisee issued a claim before the Superior Court. In July 2013, the action was stayed based on the ADR provisions, and the limitation period issue was deferred to the arbitrator. The franchisee argued that the limitation had not yet started running, as mediation was a precondition to arbitration. The franchisor in turn argued that the limitation should not be indefinitely tolled until such time mediation is requested.

The Court of Appeal applied section 5(1)(a)(iv) L.A. and held that the limitation period was not expired, as it would have been inappropriate to commence a legal action before the alternative dispute resolution process had fully run its course. The Court of Appeal did not consider this to be a "tolling" of the limitation period, as either party could have put in motion the ADR process at any time in order to start the running of the limitation period.

c. While Criminal Proceedings in Respect of the Incident Remain Outstanding

In Winmill v. Woodstock (Police Services Board),[xviii] the Court of Appeal noted that it might not be appropriate to commence a civil action while criminal proceedings in respect of the same incident remain outstanding. In that case, the plaintiff did not commence a battery claim against the defendants until his criminal charges for assault and resisting arrest were resolved. Writing for the majority, Justice MacPherson, J.A., quoted his own previous decision in Chimienti v. Windsor (City):[xix]

"[T]here is something of a logical inconsistency in asking a civil court to rule on the propriety of a criminal prosecution before the criminal court has had the opportunity to assess the merits of the underlying charge."[xx]

d. An Admission of Liability Is Not a Sufficient Reason to Extend the Limitation Period, Unless Promissory Estoppel Applies

In Nasr Hospitality Services Inc. v. Intact Insurance,[xxi] Nasr's business premises were damaged by a flood on the morning of January 31, 2013. Nasr immediately reported the water damage to its insurer Intact, and made a claim for indemnification under its commercial insurance policy. Intact paid $42,000 between March and May 2013. Intact subsequently discovered in July 2013 that the property was vacant at the time of the loss. Relying on a policy exclusion, Intact denied coverage on July 22, 2013. Nasr commenced an action against Intact on April 22, 2015 and alleged that the limitation period did not start running until coverage was denied. The motion judge[xxii] agreed, and held that it was appropriate for Nasr to wait before commencing its action.

The Court of Appeal set aside the motion judge's decision and granted summary judgment dismissing the action. The Court referred to the principle set out in prior decisions that a party claiming indemnification under or in respect of a policy of insurance knows that there was a loss caused by an omission of the insurer the day after the request or claim for indemnification is made. Applying this principle to the facts of this case, Nasr knew of the matters enumerated in section 5(a)(i)(ii)(iii) L.A. (breach, injury, causation) as of February 1, 2013. Absent an explicit promise by Intact not to rely on the limitation period (known as promissory estoppel), there was no reason to extend the limitation period, even though Intact had paid part of the claim after receiving notification of the claim. The Court of Appeal noted that: "[f]or an admission of liability to extend a limitation period something more than the admission is required (...)."[xxiii]

Concluding Remarks

If you wish to pursue a claim arising from a single incident, it is always preferable to commence an action within two years of the incident. However, if that two-year deadline has passed, there may still be time to commence an action, for example if the injury was only discovered later, or if it may not have been appropriate to commence a proceeding before.

In cases involving a breach of contract where the parties have been involved in a long-standing relationship, it may be particularly difficult to determine when the breach (or breaches) of contract occurred, making it challenging to pinpoint the date on which the limitation period may have started running.

In doubt, it is best to err on the side of caution and to consult with a litigation lawyer sooner than later.

Footnotes

[i] S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B ["L.A."].

[ii] Section 4 L.A.

[iii] It should be noted that since January 1, 2019, the 15-year ultimate limitation period (section 15 L.A.) has the effect of barring a claim 15 years after the act or omission on which the claim is based took place, regardless of when the claim was actually discovered.

[iv] 2018 ONCA 979.

[v] 2018 ONCA 469.

[vi] Judgment of Justice Corkery, S.C.J., January 12, 2017, unreported.

[vii] Har Jo, supra note 5 at para. 42.

[viii] 2019 ONCA 23.

[ix] 2017 ONSC 1323.

[x] Apotex, supra note 8 at para. 92.

[xi] Ibid. at para. 119.

[xii] 2016 ONCA 325.

[xiii] 2018 ONCA 667.

[xiv] Ibid. at para. 22.

[xv] 2019 ONCA 47.

[xvi] 2017 ONSC 5847.

[xvii] 2018 ONCA 331.

[xviii] 2017 ONCA 962.

[xix] 2011 ONCA 16.

[xx] Ibid. at para. 32.

[xxi] 2018 ONCA 725.

[xxii] 2017 ONSC 4136.

[xxiii] Nasr, supra note 21 at para. 56.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Events from this Firm
7 Dec 2017, Webinar, Toronto, Canada

FEX Members Jeff Noble, BDO, and Caroline Abela, WeirFoulds LLP, invite you to a complimentary webinar series titled: All About Shareholders.

11 Nov 2018, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

WeirFoulds Partner Glenn Ackerley will Chair the RICS & CIQS 5th Annual Construction & Project Management Seminar.

23 Feb 2019, Conference, Toronto, Canada

WeirFoulds is a proud sponsor of the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers (FACL) 12th Annual Conference and Gala.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Industry
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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