In M. (K.) v. M. (H.), 1992 CanLII 31 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6, [1992] S.C.J. No. 85, at paras. 21-24, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the underlying rationale for the limitations statutes as follows:
There
are three [purposes], and they may be described as the certainty, evidentiary,
and diligence rationales. . . .
Statutes
of limitations have long been said to be statutes of repose . . . The reasoning
is straightforward enough. There comes a time, it is said, when a potential
defendant should be secure in his reasonable expectation that he will not be
held to account for ancient obligations. . . .
The
second rationale is evidentiary and concerns the desire to foreclose claims
based on stale evidence. Once the limitation period has lapsed, the potential
defendant should no longer be concerned about the preservation of evidence
relevant to the claim. . . .
There
are, however, rules for the amendment of pleadings, which allow a court to
relieve against the harshness of an expired limitation period in certain
circumstances (for instance, in Ontario Rules 26.01 and 5.04(2) of the Rules of
Civil Procedure). It would be wrong, however, to view such rules as allowing a
party to use the existence of an outstanding claim, and nothing more, to defeat
the protection of relevant limitation periods.
See Frohlick v. Pinkerton Canada Limited,
2008 ONCA 3 (CanLII) at para 20
In
an upcoming blog I will discuss how this judicial policy informs the rules in
respect of the amendment of pleadings.
No comments:
Post a Comment