In reasons released on August 6, 2010, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the motion judge erred in finding that the claim against a winter maintenance service company should be dismissed on the basis that the claims were issued beyond the natural (former) six year limitation period prescribed by the (former ) Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L-15.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s order that the claim against the registered owner of the property in question fell beyond the natural six year limitation period since the Plaintiffs through reasonable diligence would have known the name of the registered owner of the property where she fell.  Conversely, the court held that the limitation period applicable to the claim against the winter maintenance service company was postponed because the injured plaintiff (and her lawyer) did not know nor was it reasonable to assume that they would have known until they were told (by the insurer for the owner of the property) that the registered owner hired the winter maintenance service company to maintain the property.

Distinguishing the discoverability of the latter claim the court said “…there was no simple procedure, such as a search of a public register, to ascertain that the winter maintenance responsibilities were contracted out to a third party.”

Citation: Safai v. Bruce N. Huntley Contracting Limited, 2010 ONCA 545

Olanyi Parsons LL.B

Brief informational summaries about commercial litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and other developments are periodically published on this website. They are intended to be a general comment or general discussion, not legal advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Should you require legal advice, please contact info@heydary.com or 416 972 9001.