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

OCA addresses evidentiary burden of proving that plaintiff did not act with due diligence in order to rely on a limitations defence

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
July 2, 2018
  • Adding a Party
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada,2018 ONCA 544​, the plaintiffs brought a motion under rule 5.04(2) and rule 26.01 to add the defendants to the action. The defendants opposed the motion on the basis that the claim against them was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002. The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the plaintiff adduced insufficient evidence to establish that they behaved as reasonable persons in the same or similar circumstances to identify the proposed defendants as conspirators and the evidence rather establishes that their identity could have been established with reasonable diligence before the expiry of the limitation period. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision and allowed the appeal on the following two bases: (1) that the motion judge placed too high an evidentiary threshold and (2) there was a lack of evidentiary foundation.

The Court held that the evidentiary threshold that must be met by a plaintiff on such a motion is low. The plaintiff’s explanation should be given a “generous reading.” Whether the plaintiff and its counsel acted with reasonable diligence must be considered in context.

In this case, the proposed defendants had led no evidence of further reasonable steps that the plaintiffs could have taken to ascertain their identities. Notwithstanding, the motion judge suggested that the plaintiffs should have taken further steps to investigate whether the defendants were co-conspirators. The Court of Appeal found that he had placed too high of an evidentiary burden. For example, it was not apparent how a plaintiff alleging a conspiracy that the defendants took active steps to conceal and that was conducted through secret “chats” could have possibly obtained the necessary information.

The Court also stated that the plaintiff’s failure to take reasonable steps to investigate a claim is not a stand-alone or independent ground to find a claim out of time. Instead, the reasonable steps a plaintiff ought to take is a relevant consideration in deciding when a claim is discoverable under s. 5(1)(b). More importantly, the Court held that where the issue on a motion to add a defendant is due diligence, the motion judge will not be in a position to dismiss the plaintiff’s motion in the absence of evidence that the plaintiff could have obtained the requisite information with due diligence, and by when the plaintiff could have obtained such information, such that there is no issue of credibility or fact warranting a trial or summary judgment motion. The respondents conceded that there was no evidentiary foundation for the motion judge’s finding that the respondents’ identities as co-conspirators could have been established with reasonable diligence.  As a result, the appeal was allowed and the parties were added.

The Court also stated that the issue of whether the appellants could have discovered the identities of the respondents with due diligence and, if so, when the appellants could have done so, are issues that require consideration on a summary judgment motion or at trial. 

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

  • Adding a Party

Adding a Party – Discoverability versus Due Diligence

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Adding a Party
  • Amending Pleadings

Family Law Act claims commenced under s. 61 are a separate cause of action in the context of personal injury litigation

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Adding a Party
  • Amending Pleadings

No Second Round in the Ring on Limitation Issue

By Ara Basmadjian

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