In Muirhead v. Coulas [2011] OJ No. 4908 (S.C.J.), the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the action as statute barred. The action arose from a slip and fall in July 2005 and a claim was not commenced until July 2010.
The plaintiffs took the position that the limitation period did not begin to run until June or November 2009 when two medical opinions were received following another slip and fall in February 2006 when the plaintiff injured her same knee. They claimed that it was not until they received these reports that they discovered the 2005 injuries were ongoing and permanent.
The defendants took the position that there was no issue with respect to discoverability as the plaintiff knew she hurt her knee and she underwent surgery on her knee three days later and was unable to work for several months following.
Justice Mackinnon held that the defendants met their initial burden as they had led evidence that the plaintiff knew of her injury, it was serious enough to require surgery, she could not walk for two months after, she still had pain and restriction in movement six months later and had not been able to return to work by then. Justice Mackinnon also relied on section 5(2) of the Limitations Act , 2002 which sets out a presumption that a plaintiff has the requisite knowledge as of the day the act took place, “unless the contrary is proved”.
Addressing the plaintiffs’ submission that a proceeding would not have been an appropriate means to remedy the injury sustained as the plaintiff believed her injuries were resolving and would not be permanent, Justice Mackinnon stated that section 5(1)(a)(iv) “does not amount to a bar to an action for recovery in tort” and held that the cause of action was complete, even if the complete extent of damages was not fully known.
Justice Mackinnon agreed with the plaintiffs’ submission that an individual should not be required to commence an action where there is no reasonable prospect of recovery, but found there to be no such facts in the case at hand.
In response to the plaintiffs’ submission that the true nature of the loss from the 2005 slip and fall was not knowable until after the second incident, Justice Mackinnon held that the plaintiff clearly had a claim arising from the first incident and “the facts learned subsequently that the injury was permanent and contributed to her current severe condition may have been a basis to increase the quantum of damages sought but is not a new or different claim”.
Lastly, the plaintiffs attempted to rely on cases that extended the running of the limitation period because a medical opinion was required in order to know whether a cause of action existed. Justice Mackinnon pointed out that in all of these cases, the court had referred to the requirement that the plaintiff acted with due diligence in acquiring facts in order to be fully apprised of all material facts upon which a negligence claim can be based, including being diligent in requesting and receiving a medical opinion, if required. The plaintiffs in this case did not provide evidence as to why they did not seek out the medical reports sooner that were ultimately obtained in 2009. Also, there was evidence to suggest that there was an operative report available in March of 2007 that the plaintiffs did not request until later.
It was held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.
- Kristen Dearlove, Student-at-Law
No comments:
Post a Comment