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

The Discoverability Principle in the Context of Breach of Contract Requiring Third Party Satisfaction

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
January 22, 2019
  • Discoverability
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Apotex Inc. v. Nordion (Canada) Inc., 2019 ONCA 23, the Court of Appeal considered “discoverability” within the meaning of s. 5(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002 in the context of a breach of contract. Chief Justice Strathy confirmed that the limitation period for a breach of contract does not necessarily begin from the date of the breach (which was the trigger under the former Limitations Act, RSO 1990, c. L. 15). Rather, the date of the act or omission giving rise to the breach only makes up one factor under the statutory test:

… the limitation period does not begin to run until all of the factors enumerated in s. 5(1)(a) have been satisfied, unless a reasonable person ought to have known of their existence at an earlier date (s. 5(1)(b)). In breach of contract cases, those factors include knowledge that some injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by the act or omission that is the breach of contract.

The commencement of the limitation period must be analyzed by reference to the nature of the contract, the manner of its performance, and the nature of the breach on which the claim is based. In many cases, the act or omission, causation, and the injury, loss or damage will occur simultaneously, and will be discovered simultaneously. But that will not always be the case. In some cases, discovery of the “act or omission” will not start the limitation period running unless injury, loss or damage has occurred and has been discovered.

In this case, Apotex entered into a Master Laboratory Services Agreement with the appellant, MDS, for the performance of clinical research trials. Due to concerns about the integrity of the tests, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) declined to accept MDS’s studies. To get their drug to market Apotex had to either repeat the studies or obtain an independent third party certification.

Under this contract the manner of performance required the satisfaction of a third party – the FDA. It was a contract for the delivery of a study conducted under conditions that met the requirements of the FDA, and that was in conformity with the requirements of the FDA.

On May 8, 2006 Apotex was cognizant that the approval would get delayed because of FDA’s concerns about the studies. Nevertheless at that time, Apotex did not know that the delay was caused by a breach of contract. MDS’s breaches, including the unacceptable FYR results, the mishandling of the FDA’s concerns, and that the FDA concluded that it would not accept the studies, were not known to Apotex until December 11, 2006, when that information was communicated to Apotex by the FDA.

As a result, Justice Strathy held that the factors set out in ss. 5(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Limitations Act, 2002, were not met until December 11, 2006. Until that date, Apotex did not know “that the MDS Studies would not be accepted by the FDA, resulting in delay and damage.” Since the claim was commenced in November 2008, the claim was not statute-barred.

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

Lochner v. Toronto: Discovery does not require knowledge of liability

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Discoverability

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

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Discoverability

Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Judgment Finding that Limitation Period for Arbitration of Issues Relating to Corporate Dispute Had Not Expired

By Robert Kligman

About Dentons

Across over 80 countries, Dentons helps you grow, protect, operate and finance your organization by providing uniquely global and deeply local legal solutions. Polycentric, purpose-driven and committed to inclusion, diversity, equity and sustainability, we focus on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

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 in black and white

© 2023 Dentons

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