Thursday, September 1, 2011

How long do I have to sue?

It is not uncommon for people to come to my office and complain about something that happened many years before. Usually in such cases I have to stop them and explain that, unfortunately for them, there is a limitation period that bars them from suing for their losses.

In general, in Ontario, you have no more than two years from the time you first learn of (or a reasonable person would have learned of) a possible claim to commence a law suit. You do not have to finish the lawsuit within two years but you have to have a court issue the claim itself.

Often you learn of the potential claim as soon as it happens. For example, if you are injured at someones house, say because they had an unsafe staircase, you know as soon as you are hurt that you can make a claim. In that sort of case you have two years from the injury to start a lawsuit.

Other times you may not learn of your claim for some time. Imagine you have your house painted and the painter uses the wrong type of paint. It may be that the paint looks fine for 6 months and then starts to peel. You can sue for using the wrong paint, but your two years does not run from the date the house was painted but from the date you learn there was a problem.

There is an ultimate limitation period of fifteen years. Even in circumstances where you could not reasonably have discovered wrongful actions by someone the law says something someone did fifteen years or more before cannot ground a claim. This is justified by the difficulty faced by all parties in litigating over facts that occurred more than fifteen years before the litigation even starts.

Claims that relate to sexual abuse, aboriginal claims or environmental damage have special rules and may survive longer than the usual limitation period.

As a practical matter, if you are going to sue, do it as soon as possible and don't wait until just before a limitation period runs out.


4 comments:

SCLaw said...

It's nice to read about some of the basics now and again. Thanks for the refresher!

Anonymous said...

This is all liberal tripe. Just fishing for work from the public trough.

Anonymous said...

What about brain injury cases? Say the case was tainted by an unqualified "expert" who the plaintif lawyer failed to check with his/her lisencing body? Say a brain injured auto accident victim lost her/his case on the testimony of an unqualified "expert" witness. Can anybody be sued? What is the limitation period in situations like this when the brain injured victim is kept in the dark and never told that their case was wrongfuly decided on the testimony of an unqualified expert? How can the limitation period clock run if the cognitively impaired victims are being stonewalled by the system (FSCO, lawyers, etc.)? Wait - "stonewalled" implies an intent to keep the victims in the dark. "Stonewalled" suggests the system's players are conspiring to keep (a lot of)former brain injured litigants unaware their cases were tainted by unchecked, unchallenged, unqualfied "expert" testimony. But wait - your subsequent post states there are no conspiracies - that stupidity is the better explanation. So my question is this - are the unqualified rogue experts who taint cases and cause wrongful brain injury arbitration decisions being protected from accountability via a conspiracy to avoid systemic embarrasment to the system/lawyers or is it merely due to a collective and monumental stupidity.

Anonymous said...

Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article.
I'll be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful information. Thanks for the post. I'll certainly return.


my site Hard knight