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 clarifies the Applicability of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) in Professional Negligence cases

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
May 26, 2017
  • Discoverability
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Presidential MSH Corp. v. Marr, Foster & Co. LLP, 2017 ONCA 325, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed a client’s lawsuit against an accounting firm to continue, despite the fact that the two-year limitation period had expired before the action was commenced. While a motion judge had dismissed Presidential’s lawsuit on summary judgment as the limitation period had expired, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision, finding the accountant’s attempts to mitigate the client’s damages in the year after receiving the fines tolled the limitation period.

The facts in this case are important. The respondents filed the appellant’s corporate tax returns after their due date. As a result, Canada Revenue Agency denied tax credits that would have been available had the returns been filed on time. The appellant suffered damages in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. The appellant received CRA’s Notices of Assessment disallowing each of the claimed credits on April 12, 2010. The appellant retained a lawyer who filed a Notice of Objection. The respondent accountants continued to help the appellant prepare its appeals to the CRA by drafting the application for relief and helping the appellant and its lawyer with whatever else they needed. 

By letter dated May 16, 2011, the CRA responded to the Notice of Objection advising that it intended to confirm the assessments. It did in fact confirm them on July 7, 2011. On August 1, 2012, the appellant issued its statement of claim against the accountants. This was more than two years after the initial denial by CRA of the credits, but within two years of CRA’s refusal to alter the assessments in response to the Notice of Objection. 

The decision turned on the interpretation of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002,which requires the plaintiff to have knowledge, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, that a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it. 

The Court discussed the purpose of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) and held that whether an action is appropriate depends on the specific factual or statutory setting of each individual case. Prior case law suggested that a legal proceeding against an expert professional may not be appropriate if the claim arose out of the professional’s alleged wrongdoing but may be resolved by the professional himself or herself without recourse to the courts, rendering the proceeding unnecessary. Further, where alternate processes are available to potentially resolve a dispute, commencing a court proceeding would not be appropriate.  The courts will allow plaintiffs to have the benefit of working through other possible remedies under administrative or non-administrative, alternative processes in order to avoid needless litigation (e.g. CRA’s internal appeal procedures). 

Accordingly, the accountants’ involvement in the appellant’s appeal to the CRA was not trivial. It would not have been appropriate under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Act for the appellant to commence a proceeding against the accountants until their ameliorative efforts concluded. Thus, the plaintiff’s underlying claim was not discovered until May 2011 when CRA responded to the appellant’s Notice of Objection and advised that it intended to confirm its initial assessments.

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

  • Discoverability

Ontario Superior Court of Justice grants Leave to Amend a Plaintiff’s Claim to Add a Ride-Sharing Platform as a Defendant in a Motor Vehicle Claim

By Ara Basmadjian
  • Discoverability

Rausch v. Pickering (City), 2013 ONCA 740 (adding a claim after expiration of limitation period)

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Discoverability
  • Misnomer

No Obligation to Sue a John Doe or Jane Doe

By Ara Basmadjian and Barbara Grossman

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

© 2022 Dentons

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