Learn more about the doctrine of laches and acquiescence under Canadian law, including some examples through decided cases applying this doctrine
Amidst our busyness, being idle just for some time is a leisure; doing nothing and letting things go their own way are just some of the things we aspire to have in our lives every once in a while. However, that is not the case in law, in view of the doctrine of laches and acquiescence.
In this article, we’ll break down what this doctrine means and how it applies to Canadian law. This article can be used by litigants who want to know if their case can still be filed in court after quite some time. This can also be used by lawyers as an educational piece for their clients.
The doctrine of laches and acquiescence is an important principle in Canada that can affect how certain claims are handled in court litigation. Basically, if someone waits too long to take legal action or allows a situation to continue without objection, they may lose any of the rights they are claiming.
Under Canadian common law, the doctrine of laches and acquiescence is an equitable defence, usually invoked in a civil case. It bars a litigant from asserting their rights because of their own unreasonable delay, especially when the delay prejudices the other party. For instance, when the defendant’s position has already changed, it would then be unfair to still hear the case of the plaintiff.
As a result, the doctrine of laches prompts every person to assert their right, or to seek redress for the obligation of another, as soon as possible. Otherwise, it is inferred that the person holding such right has acquiesced to the wrongdoing or has waived their right to file an action in court.
There are several reasons why this doctrine came about. Among them is that a person who was injured by another, or has a right that they want to assert, ordinarily does so without losing too much time. It also unclogs the court of stale demands and gives defendants peace of mind that cases will no longer be filed against them. In the end, it all boils down to the principle that there should be an end to litigation.
Whenever this defence is raised in a case, the court will look into the surrounding circumstances to see if there really is laches by one of the parties. If there’s a delay, it will also consider the facts of the case and determine whether this delay is inordinate or unreasonable. Should there be a finding of laches and acquiescence, the case may be dismissed, preventing the plaintiff from recovering anything or from getting the remedies they’re praying for.
Here’s a video that basically explains what the doctrine of laches is:
Learn more about the doctrine of laches and acquiescence as specifically applied to estate planning cases by consulting a lawyer near you. You can use our directory of the best personal tax planning and estate lawyers in Canada as ranked by Lexpert.
In the case of M.(K.) v. M.(H.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6, the Supreme Court of Canada laid down two branches of the doctrine of laches, either of which will trigger its application:
There must be a delay in either of these instances to trigger the finding of laches. The M.(K.) case, however, held that mere delay itself is also insufficient. From this, we can say that for there to be laches, there must be delay and acquiescence, or delay and prejudice.
Expanding on these two elements is the case of Zurich Insurance Company v. TD General Insurance Company, 2014 ONSC 3191. Here, it was held that “acquiescence alone is enough to apply the doctrine of laches...and that prejudice is not a necessary element to a laches defence.” This means that the two elements laid down by the M.(K.) case do not need to go together for there to be a finding of laches; it’s enough that either of the two exists. It’s an “or” thing, not an “and.”
The M.(K.) case also expounded on the meaning of acquiescence, when used as one of the elements of laches. It’s said that acquiescence can be understood through its three senses:
being a synonym for estoppel: the primary meaning of acquiescence, wherein the plaintiff stands by and watches the deprivation of their rights and yet does nothing
as an element of laches: when the plaintiff delays after the deprivation of their rights and in the full knowledge of their existence, leading to an inference that their rights have been waived
related to prejudice as an element of laches: this is in the context of a change of the defendant's position relying on the plaintiff's inaction
As a leading case for the doctrine of laches and acquiescence, the M.(K.) case gave us how to understand acquiescence more deeply. Under the first and second senses of acquiescence, the case held that it’s important that the person being alleged guilty of laches must have knowledge of their rights. The person must know “the facts that support a claim in equity,” but also “the facts give rise to that claim.”
The test in measuring one’s knowledge would be: “whether it is reasonable for a plaintiff to be ignorant of [their] legal rights given [their] knowledge of the underlying facts relevant to a possible legal claim.”
The concept of knowledge in terms of acquiescence is also reasonably related to the discoverability rule in tort. Under the discoverability rule, there must not be more than just mere knowledge of the acts that resulted in damage, but also of the wrongfulness of those acts. This works similarly in knowing that a legal claim is possible, giving rise to a right that a person must not be sleeping on.
There are several reasons why the doctrine of laches and acquiescence may not be applied by the court, which will allow the claim, if it’s not barred by other defences. Here are some of these instances:
Another case for the non-application of laches is in the case of Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14. Laches was among the grounds cited by the government to defeat the claim of the Métis under the Manitoba Act, 1870. The Court granted the appeal and held that the doctrine of laches “does not apply to a constitutional division of powers question.” It said that, as guardian of the Constitution, it could not apply an equitable doctrine to defeat a claim where a Constitutional provision was not fulfilled.
The doctrine of laches and acquiescence is usually related to the limitation periods set by law. Under the provincial limitation statutes, a person will be prohibited from filing a case in court if it’s filed after the limitation period it has set for that specific civil or criminal action.
In both cases, a person who slept on their rights will be barred from asserting these rights in any court or adjudicating body. Even similar actions that arose from the same cause of action may be prevented from being pursued.
While both may be easily confused with each other, there are differences between laches and limitation periods:
source of law: limitation periods are governed by provincial statutes on the matter, as also applied and interpreted further by case law; while laches is sourced out mainly from common law
measurement of time: under the provincial limitation periods, a specified number of months or years are set for every type of court action; but holding that laches apply to case will depend on the court or the body adjudicating the case, since there’s no fix limit in laches, although there are examples in common law to guide such court or body
laches as an alternative: in some cases, when no statutory limitation period applies, but there has been an unreasonable delay on the part of the plaintiff, the doctrine of laches and acquiescence may be invoked instead
For both laches and statute of limitations, the party invoking these defences has the burden of proving them, according to the facts surrounding the case.
Here’s another video that shortly explains how the doctrine of laches applies:
As the doctrine of laches and acquiescence usually applies to litigation, be updated on this area of law by bookmarking our page on Special Editions – Litigation.
One of the cases that apply the doctrine of laches and acquiescence in estate litigation is the case of Wall Estate, 2018 ONSC 1735. This case came about because of the dispute between the subject estate’s trustee, Ian Paul Shaw, and the deceased’s daughter, Elizabeth Ann Wall. When Elizabeth’s mother died in 2005, she left several properties under a trust with Ian Paul as the trustee. Annual meetings were also held between the trustee and Elizabeth since then.
Laches was raised by Ian Paul when Elizabeth brought an application for him to pass accounts for the entire period of the trust, which is from 2005 until 2013. According to the trustee, he is not required to address any of the objections to these accounts for those periods, applying either Ontario’s Limitations Act or laches. However, it was undisputed that:
In concluding that neither the Limitations Act nor laches apply, the Court re-echoed the discussions on laches and acquiescence in the M.(K.) case. Applying these concepts, it considered the following facts in this case, among others:
the trustee did not follow the best practices for an estate trustee, specifically when he did not obtain formal releases, nor did he seek to pass accounts for the many years under his administration until required to do so by court order
there was obvious imbalance of power, where the trustee was aware that he had absolute discretion with respect to the payments to Elizabeth
This case illustrated some of the things that trustees should do when it comes to the handling of their relationship with the trust’s beneficiaries. It has also shown that the doctrine of laches and acquiescence cannot be relied upon all the time, since its application will depend on the facts of each case.
While the Wall Estate case disallowed the defence of laches in estate litigation, other cases show that it can still be invoked by defendants when the case calls for it. Some of these cases are the following:
Re O'Reilly (No. 2), 1981 CanLII 1906 (ON CA): in the alternative, the court held that claims of some of the children against their co-beneficiaries were barred by laches and acquiescence for their inaction for a period of more than 20 years
Egnatios v. Leon Estate, 1990 CanLII 8067 (ON SC): there’s laches when the plaintiff’s acquiescence involves 43 years of delay from asserting her claim against her brothers (that she is entitled to a one-tenth interest in the estate of their late father) and the fact that she was aware of her brothers’ positions
Again, the finding of laches will depend on the circumstances of the case, since there’s no hard-and-fast rule on when it should apply or not.
The doctrine of laches and acquiescence ensures the filing of timely legal action, while maintaining fairness in litigation. In addition to the limitation periods, this doctrine should be considered by those who want to pursue a case in court. Similarly, defendants who want to invoke the doctrine should be guided on its elements and qualifications. As such, may it either be in our usual daily routine or even in filing a claim in court, being timely and alert is always the principle.
To learn more about the doctrine of laches and acquiescence in the context of estate planning, reach out to the Lexpert-ranked best personal tax planning and estate law firms in Canada.
