August 3, 2021
On July 29, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada refined the test for determining when a plaintiff has discovered a claim for the purpose of a general limitation period. In Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick, Canada’s highest court confirmed that a plaintiff “discovers” its claim when it has actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts, as set out in the limitation statute, upon which a plausible inference of liability can be drawn. The decision is significant because it replaces the patchwork of approaches to “discoverability” that have developed since the Court rendered its seminal decision of Central Trust Co v. Rafuse more than three decades ago, refining the rule and giving all litigants a greater degree of certainty around when a limitation period starts to run. While the decision is based on the New Brunswick limitation of actions legislation, each Canadian province and territory has a limitation of actions law, and most include a similar “discoverability” standard, making the decision relevant to litigants across Canada.
Here’s a look at the factual background, the Court’s decision, and how the Court refined the discoverability rule. McInnes Cooper Litigation Lawyer Tony Richardson represented the successful party.
The Background. In June 2009, the Province of New Brunswick provided $50M in loan guarantees to Atcon Holdings Inc., a New Brunswick-based construction company. The government of the day guaranteed the loans despite the repeated recommendations of its bureaucrats against providing additional taxpayer dollars to Atcon. Prior to the issuance of the loan guarantees, Atcon provided the Province with its audited F2009 financial statements in which Grant Thornton opined the financial statements presented fairly, in all material respects, Atcon’s financial position in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Less than one year later, in March 2010, Atcon’s lender placed Atcon into insolvency proceedings and called on the loan guarantees. As a result, the Province paid $50M to the lender. In June 2010, the Province retained RSM Richter Inc. to perform what was effectively the same mandate as Grant Thornton in relation to Atcon’s F2009 financial statements. The Province prohibited Richter from communicating with Grant Thornton. As a result, Richter couldn’t comment on Grant Thornton’s auditing work. In February 2011, Richter provided an 88-page report to the Province concluding Atcon’s F2009 financial statements hadn’t been prepared in accordance with GAAP and contained material misstatements. The Province took no further steps to investigate whether it had a claim against Grant Thornton. However, in June 2014, the Province sued Grant Thornton for $50M claiming that Grant Thornton negligently audited Atcon’s F2009 financial statements. The Province’s 106-paragraph Statement of Claim mirrored the Richter Report, sometimes copying it verbatim. Grant Thornton denied liability throughout and continuously stood behind the audit work it had performed.
The Decision. Grant Thornton brought a motion for summary judgment asking the Court to dismiss the Province’s legal action on the ground it filed the action more than two years after it had discovered its claim. New Brunswick’s Limitation of Actions Act requires a plaintiff to bring its claim within two years from the day on which they discover the claim. Grant Thornton argued the Province “discovered” its claim in February 2011 when it received the Richter Report. The Province argued it had yet to “discover” its claim because it didn’t know whether Grant Thornton had breached generally accepted auditing standards in its performance of the Atcon audit. The Court decided the Province discovered its claim against Grant Thornton when it received the Richter Report in February 2011 because at that point, the Province had actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts to draw a plausible inference of liability. The Court expressly noted that this doesn’t mean Grant Thornton was negligent; this question would have been decided in a trial of the Province’s legal action if it had filed it within the limitation period. As a result, the Court dismissed the Province’s action as barred by the limitation of actions legislation.
The Discoverability Rule Refined. In its 1986 decision in Central Trust Co v. Rafuse, the Supreme Court held that for the purposes of limitation of actions legislation, a claim is discovered “when the material facts on which it is based have been discovered or ought to have been discovered by the plaintiff by the exercise of reasonable diligence”. Since then, there has been confusion about the degree of knowledge required to “discover” a claim. The different formulations ranged along a spectrum between mere suspicion to perfect knowledge of a potential claim. In Grant Thornton LLP v New Brunswick, the Supreme Court refined the discoverability rule to address this confusion, giving all litigants the ability to determine when a limitation period starts – and when it ends – with greater certainty:
Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our Litigation Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.
McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.
© McInnes Cooper, 2021. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.
Jun 20, 2024
On April 30, 2024, the Ontario Divisional Court decided the victim of a serious cyber security incident was required to produce to privacy…
Jan 26, 2023
In November 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively decided an organization whose information systems are breached by a malicious third…
Nov 21, 2022
On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the interaction of arbitration and bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, deciding a…
Jul 18, 2022
The Supreme Court of Canada’s “Jordan” framework, introducing strict timelines for determining unreasonable delay in the context of…
Mar 31, 2022
On March 18, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that an Indigenous government can still satisfy the impecuniosity requirement for an…
Feb 8, 2022
Updated June 17, 2024. On May 17, 2022, the P.E.I. Non-disclosure Agreements Act took effect, significantly restricting the use of…
Feb 3, 2022
On January 26, 2022, the British Columbia Court of Appeal extended an injunction preventing protesters from interfering with a logging…
Dec 16, 2021
We updated this publication on January 12, 2024. The name of the game is to have a plan to mitigate the risk that a data breach will happen…
Nov 12, 2021
On November 4, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law regarding when a judgment debtor “carries on business” for the purpose of…
Mar 1, 2021
The Supreme Court of Canada continues to develop and clarify the organizing principle of good faith performance in contract law. In its 2014…
Jan 18, 2021
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the 2014 case of Bhasin v. Hrynew, recognized a general organizing principle of good faith performance in…
Jul 6, 2020
On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada released Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, a much-awaited decision regarding the enforceability of…
May 11, 2020
The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a much-awaited decision regarding the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The CCAA is…
Mar 10, 2020
The global COVID-19 (a.k.a. Coronavirus or SARS-CoV-2) outbreak has implications for many commercial relationships, its evolving nature and…
Feb 14, 2020
NOTE: On July 23, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Newfoundland & Labrador Court of Appeal’s decision respecting the law,…
Jan 14, 2020
On December 23, 2019, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal effectively eliminated the category of “knowledgeable fact witness” in…
Nov 18, 2019
Effective December 1, 2019, the New Brunswick government will finally finalize the reform of N.B.’s money judgment enforcement regime with the…
Jan 12, 2018
Whether a provincial court will grant police a “production order” under the Criminal Code of Canada requiring a non-Canadian company to…
Jun 28, 2017
On June 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed a Canadian court can issue an interlocutory injunction (an order requiring an entity or…
Jun 23, 2017
On June 23, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that in a contest between the choice of forum clause in Facebook’s online terms of use…
Jun 5, 2017
On June 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that where a plaintiff advances a claim for negligently caused psychological or psychiatric…
Aug 17, 2016
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently affirmed the test for confirming a cause of action and thus resetting a limitation period…
Nov 14, 2014
On November 13, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) effected a significant development in Canadian contract law by recognizing the…
Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.