Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Limitations Law Blog

Updates on key developments on laws involving limitation periods in Ontario.

open menu close menu

Limitations Law Blog

  • Home
  • About us

Boyce v. The Co-Operators Insurance Company, 2013 ONCA 298 (Agreement to Shorten, s. 22)

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
May 27, 2013
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Boyce v. The Co-Operators Insurance Company, 2013 ONCA 298, which highlights how important it is for contracts that shorten the relevant limitation period under section 22 of the Limitations Act, 2002 to have clear language.

This caseconcerned a contractual limitation period contained in an insurance policy; however, the case has general application to other types of business agreements that attempts to shorten a limitation period.  In Boyce, the owners of a fashion boutique suffered loss as a result of a foul odour in their business premises.  They sued their insurer more than a year after suffering the underlying loss, seeking indemnification for the loss.  The insurance contract contained a one-year limitation period for bringing an action.  The relevant provision states as follows:

Every action or proceeding against the insurer for recovery of any claim under or by virtue of this contract is absolutely barred unless commenced within one year* next after the loss or damage occurs.


*Two years in province of Manitoba and Yukon Territory.

The Court of Appeal gave effect to the contractual limitation period and dismissed the insured’s claim.  The Court of Appeal concluded that when faced with a contractual term that purports to shorten a statutory limitation period, the court must consider whether that provision in “clear language” describes:

  1. a limitation period;
  2. identifies the scope of the application of that limitation period; and
  3. excludes the operation of other limitation periods.

 A term in a contract which meets the above requirements will be sufficient for section 22 purposes, assuming that it meets the other requirements specifically identified in section 22:

  1. the agreement to shorten the limitation period is a “Business Agreement”, defined in the Limitations Act, 2002 as an agreement made by parties none of whom is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and;
  2. the agreement was made either before January 1, 2004, or after October 19, 2006.

The Court of Appeal rejected the framework proposed by the motions judge that would have imposed additional requirements to enforcement.  Those requirements were:

(i) specific reference to the statutory limitation period;


(ii) clear and unequivocal language that the parties were intending to vary the statutory protection;


(iii) a provision clearly alerting the insured that they were foregoing a statutory right to a longer limitation period; and


(iv) be signed by the person(s) foregoing such a right in order to make clear that he or she understands the forfeiture of that statutory right.

The decision in Boyce is a significant one which gives effect to the legislative intention to permit the shortening of limitation periods in business agreements.  This may be a good time for insurers and other parties to a contract to ensure they describe any shortening of the applicable limitation period using clear language.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Dentons Limitations Law Group

About Dentons Limitations Law Group

The Limitations Law Blog contains summaries of the latest developments arising from appellate and lower court decisions on limitations law in Ontario. Subscribe today and be one of the first to receive our insights on recent limitations law developments in Ontario.

All posts

RELATED POSTS

  • COVID-19
  • Discoverability
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements

Limitation Periods during the Coronavirus Pandemic

By Ara Basmadjian
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements

Court of Appeal holds that the duty to defend is an ongoing obligation to be applied on a “rolling” basis and insurers cannot contract out of the Limitations Act where policy holders are consumers

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Attempted Resolution
  • Discoverability
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements

Hamilton (City) v. Metcalfe & Mansfield Capital Corp., 2012 ONCA 156 (Discoverability and Tolling Agreements)

By Dentons Limitations Law Group

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

  • Acknowledgment
  • Adding a Party
  • Amending Pleadings
  • Attempted Resolution
  • Contribution and Indemnity
  • COVID-19
  • Demand Obligations
  • Discoverability
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • General
  • Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"
  • Limitation Periods in Federal Court
  • Misnomer
  • Motions to Strike
  • Notable cases in other provinces
  • Special Circumstances
  • Statutory Variation of Time Limits
  • Successors
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements
  • Transitional Provisions
  • Ultimate Limitation Periods

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2023 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site