Ontario civil | Consumer Protection
Limitation period
Basic limitation period had no application to statutory framework for consumer credit reporting
Applicant brought application for order that two consumer reporting agencies remove debts over two years old that were shown on his credit report, where no legal action had been commenced or judgment obtained in respect of debts. Applicant relied on provisions of Limitations Act, 2002 (Ont.) (LA), and in particular basic limitation period of two years applicable to commencement of proceeding in respect of claim. Applicant took position that two-year limitation period should apply in interpreting provisions of Consumer Reporting Act (Ont.) (CRA). Applicant’s application was dismissed. Applicant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Application judge did not err in his dismissal of applicant’s application, on basis that basic limitation period had no application to statutory framework for consumer credit reporting in province, and there was no violation by consumer reporting agencies of requirements of CRA. LA did not apply to CRA, whether expressly or by implication. Reporting of debts after limitation period had passed was not inconsistent with purposes of CRA, and was expressly contemplated by its terms.
Grant v. Equifax Canada Co. (June 23, 2016, Ont. C.A., Paul Rouleau J.A., K. van Rensburg J.A., and M.L. Benotto J.A., CA C61664) Decision at 259 A.C.W.S. (3d) 673 was affirmed. 268 A.C.W.S. (3d) 337.
Basic limitation period had no application to statutory framework for consumer credit reporting
Applicant brought application for order that two consumer reporting agencies remove debts over two years old that were shown on his credit report, where no legal action had been commenced or judgment obtained in respect of debts. Applicant relied on provisions of Limitations Act, 2002 (Ont.) (LA), and in particular basic limitation period of two years applicable to commencement of proceeding in respect of claim. Applicant took position that two-year limitation period should apply in interpreting provisions of Consumer Reporting Act (Ont.) (CRA). Applicant’s application was dismissed. Applicant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Application judge did not err in his dismissal of applicant’s application, on basis that basic limitation period had no application to statutory framework for consumer credit reporting in province, and there was no violation by consumer reporting agencies of requirements of CRA. LA did not apply to CRA, whether expressly or by implication. Reporting of debts after limitation period had passed was not inconsistent with purposes of CRA, and was expressly contemplated by its terms.
Grant v. Equifax Canada Co. (June 23, 2016, Ont. C.A., Paul Rouleau J.A., K. van Rensburg J.A., and M.L. Benotto J.A., CA C61664) Decision at 259 A.C.W.S. (3d) 673 was affirmed. 268 A.C.W.S. (3d) 337.
