Stilwell V. World Kitchen Inc.: Ontario Court Of Appeal Clarifies Standard Of Review For Decisions On Limitation Period Defences

The Ontario Court of Appeal's November 4, 2014 decision in Stilwell v. World Kitchen Inc. considered the standard of review concerning a finding of when a limitation period commenced running against a particular defendant. Hourigan J.A., for a unanimous Court of Appeal, confirmed that great deference must be given to trial judges' decisions in this respect, and the standard of review of a trial judge's application of the test is palpable and overriding error.

In this product liability case, there was no dispute that the plaintiffs added a second defendant ("Corning") outside of what would have been the applicable limitation period if the limitation period began running from the date of the injury. The question therefore was when the plaintiffs knew or should have known that they had a cause of action against Corning. Corning conceded that this is primarily a question of fact and the corresponding standard of review by an appellate court is one of palpable and overriding error. However, it argued that the articulation and application of this legal threshold must be reviewed on a standard of correctness.

Hourigan J.A. rejected Corning's submissions for a number of reasons:

[18] Corning submits that where the identity of a potential defendant is in question, the limitation period commences when the plaintiff has, or is deemed to have, prima facie grounds to infer that the relevant acts or omissions were caused by a particular party: Kowal v. Shyiak, 2012 ONCA 512, 13 C.L.R. (4th) 7, at para. 18.

[19] Corning concedes that the determination of when the plaintiff has, or is deemed to have, such prima facie grounds is primarily a question of fact and that the corresponding standard of review by an appellate court is one of palpable and overriding error. However, Corning argues that the articulation and application of this legal threshold must be reviewed on a standard of correctness. The motion judge, it submits, erred in articulating too low a standard of reasonable diligence on the part of the respondent in investigating its potential claim. Corning claims that this error is extricable from the trial judge's findings of fact and is, therefore, reviewable according to a standard of correctness.

[20] I would reject this argument for the following reasons.

[21] Counsel for Corning conceded in oral argument that the trial judge articulated the correct legal issue in his ruling when he stated that "the real question to be answered is whether the...