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

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

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
December 18, 2013
  • Discoverability
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Rausch v Pickering (City), 2013 ONCA 740, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a claim may be added after the 2-year limitation period has expired, so long as the claim flows from facts already pleaded. 

In Rausch,the City of Pickering had shut down the respondent’s boar farming business pursuant to a municipal by-law that restricted the keeping of certain animals. In 2007, the respondent sued the City for damages on the basis of trespass, abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Four years later, the respondent sought leave to add a claim in negligence alleging that the City breached section 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, (“FFPPA”), which prevents a municipal by-law from restricting a normal farm practice that is part of an agricultural operation. The Master granted the order, finding that the negligence claim arose out of facts already pleaded in the statement of claim. The City subsequently moved to strike the respondent’s pleadings pursuant to Rule 21 of theRules of Civil Procedure. The Motions Judge dismissed the motion, and the Divisional Court upheld the decision. The City appealed.

One of the issues considered by the Ontario Court of Appeal was whether the respondent’s negligence claim was statute-barred given that it was added four years after the filing of the original suit. The Court of Appeal found that it was not, as no new cause of action was pled. Epstein J.A., for the majority, held that the respondent’s claim advanced an alternative theory of liability based on the same facts, and not a new cause of action. Epstein J.A. allowed the amendments, stating at para. 102:

“[R]elying on a common law duty as opposed to a statutory one is merely relying on a different legal path to reach the same conclusion. Moreover, Mr. Rausch’s pleadings already allege the material facts necessary to support such a claim. Thus, in relying on a common law duty of care, Mr. Rausch asserts an alternative theory of liability flowing from the facts as pleaded. His claim is therefore not barred by the limitations period.”

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

Ameliorative Efforts Will Not Delay Discovery Indefinitely

By Ara Basmadjian
  • Discoverability

A plaintiff cannot rely on its own inaction to toll a limitation period

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Contribution and Indemnity
  • Discoverability

Court of Appeal for Ontario Addresses Actual and Constructive Knowledge of Claims for Contribution and Indemnity

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

© 2023 Dentons

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