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

“Suspicions” not good enough to trigger discoverability under s. 5(1)(a)(iv)

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
September 11, 2018
  • Discoverability
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Nelson v. Lavoie, 2018 ONSC 4489, the defendants brought a summary judgment application on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim was statute barred under the Limitations Act, 2002. The plaintiff, an employee of Hydro One, consulted with the defendants, two financial advisors, in order to transfer her Hydro One pension into an Individual Pension Plan (“IPP”). In 2009, the plaintiff consulted with a bookkeeper and an accountant who told her that the IPP may not be complaint with the Income Tax Act. The plaintiff retained legal counsel who requested confirmation from the defendants that the IPP was complaint. The defendants subsequently affirmed that the IPP was complaint in two formal letters to counsel. In 2010, the plaintiff requested a review of the IPP by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”). The CRA confirmed in September 2011 that the IPP was non-compliant. The Statement of Claim was issued on June 20, 2012.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion and argued that the claim is statute barred because the plaintiff knew, or ought to have known by August 2009 that she had a cause of action (i.e. when she became suspicious about the compliance of the IPP). The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis that her claim did not materialize until the CRA issued the final report, confirming non-compliance.

The summary judgment motion was dismissed. Del Frate J. held that the plaintiff did not have a cause of action until 2011, when the CRA confirmed the IPP was non-complaint. In assessing the application of s. 5 of the Limitations Act, Del Frate J. noted that although the plaintiff had suspicions about the IPP in 2009, the defendants reassurances prevented her from discovering that damage had occurred as per s. 5(1)(a)(i) of the Limitations Act. Del Frate J. also held that since the CRA had not issued a final determination as to the validity of the IPP, it would not have been the appropriate time to seek a remedy in 2009, based on s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act. The damages (arrears and penalties) were not known until the CRA confirmed non-compliance. 

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

Commencing a claim in the wrong forum does not suspend the running of a limitation period

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Contribution and Indemnity
  • Discoverability

Landmark OCA decision on s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Discoverability

Welch v. Peel Standard Condominium Corp. No. 755, 2013 ONSC 7611 (discoverability and adding a party after the expiration of a limitation period)

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