Jason Daoust-Crochetiere v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources for the Province of Ontario

(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)


Crown law - Crown liability, Limitation of actions, Civil procedure, Pleadings.


Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Crown law — Crown liability — Proceedings against the Crown — Notice — Limitations of actions (prescription) — Civil procedure — Pleadings — Amending pleadings after limitation expired — Whether the notice requirement set out in the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.27, s. 7(3), subject to any common law extension for fairness and discoverability — If the applicant is precluded from relying on s. 5(1)(c) of the Act by s. 7(3), whether the applicant is also precluded from claiming against the Crown under s. 5(1)(a) for the claims set out in the statement of claim — Whether the claim can be amended to plead an action in contract arguing that there was an implied term of the contract for use of the boat launch that the respondent would ensure it was reasonably safe for use by the public, even though the fact of a contract was not pled in the original claim.

Mr. Daoust-Crochetiere sustained an injury on a boat launch at the Wasaga Beach Provincial Park on June 13, 2010. Although he knew he had been injured and knew who was responsible, he did not believe that the injury was as severe or as permanent as it proved to be. Mr. Daoust-Crochetiere gave the Crown notice of the accident on October 27, 2010. The Respondent moved for summary judgment and dismissal of the action on the grounds that notice as required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.27, had not been given.

The motions judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Daoust-Crochetiere’s appeal.