Limitation period did not begin to run until plaintiff made indemnification demand

In May 2012, plaintiff, passenger on bus, struck face on interior bar of bus when driver braked suddenly after unidentified driver cut bus off. In February 2014, plaintiff notified bus driver and transit company that she intended to pursue tort action, and statement of claim was issued in March 2014 against bus driver, transit company and plaintiff’s personal insurer. In 2017, plaintiff's insurer amended its defence to deny it was plaintiff's insurer for purposes of unidentified motorist coverage, claiming transit company's insurer was first loss insurer for unidentified motorist coverage. Motion judge granted plaintiff’s motion to amend statement of claim to add transit company's insurer as defendant finding that limitation period had not expired. Defendants appealed. Appeal dismissed. Discoverability provisions in Limitations Act, 2002 governed analysis in this case, rather than common law principles. Limitation period did not begin to run until plaintiff made indemnification demand and responding insurer failed to satisfy claim.

Rooplal v. Fodor (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 20282, 2019 ONSC 7211, Sachs J., Ducharme J., and LeMay J. (Ont. Div. Ct.); affirmed (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 22690, 2018 ONSC 4985, V.R. Chiappetta J. (Ont. S.C.J.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca