Case information

Limitation of actions — Discoverability — Summary judgment — In an environmental claim, does the knowledge of any contamination necessarily equate to actual knowledge of “some damage” sufficient to start the limitation period? — In an environmental claim, what is the significance of context in assessing when a limitation period begins to run?

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.

The applicant property developer brought an action seeking damages for the presence of contaminants on a property it purchased in 1990 from the predecessor of the respondent. The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the applicant’s action was not started within the six-year limitation period in place at the time. The motion judge in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action as statute-barred. The judge found that the applicant had actual knowledge in April 1991 of soil contamination on the property. This triggered the start of the limitation period, which was then six years. Accordingly, the limitation period had long since expired by the time the applicant commenced its action in January 2004.

The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal after rejecting the applicant’s arguments that the motion judge erred in principle by failing to account for the context, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and failed to consider whether its claim of continuing nuisance was statute-barred.