Calculation in ruling considers limitation periods suspended amid pandemic
In a case involving a limitation period suspended in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed a decision finding that s. 4 of Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002, statute-barred the employee’s wrongful dismissal claim against her employer.
In Brady v. Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, 2025 ONCA 722, a composite local represented the bargaining unit with the appellant employee’s home position.
From October 2018, the appellant began a temporary assignment as an acting manager, which was not a bargaining unit position. On Apr. 30, 2020, she heard that the respondent employer would terminate her in that role and return her to her bargaining unit position.
On or about May 11, 2020, the appellant learned that the respondent would not return her to her home position in the bargaining unit and instead expected her to take a frontline clinical social work position.
On May 14, 2020, the appellant went on medical leave, allegedly due to the trauma from her reassignment to a more junior role. On May 22, 2020, the respondent confirmed that her temporary contract as acting manager ended on May 17, 2020.
The appellant brought a wrongful dismissal claim on Oct. 27, 2022, which she served on Nov. 24, 2022. Last Jan. 6, Justice Sharon Lavine of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed her claim.
First, the motion judge ruled that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over the claim under Weber v. Ontario Hydro, 1995 CanLII 108 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929, and s. 48(1) of Ontario’s Labour Relations Act, 1995, as it essentially arose from the collective agreement’s interpretation, application, administration, or alleged violation.
Second, the judge held that s. 4 of the Limitations Act statute-barred the claim because the appellant initiated it after the two-year limitation period’s expiration.
On appeal, the appellant challenged both conclusions. Citing McAuley v. Canada Post Corporation, 2021 ONSC 4528, she alleged that she could commence her claim until Oct. 30, 2022, or two years and 183 days from Apr. 30, 2020.
According to the appellant, the judge should have calculated the limitation period by:
Alternatively, the appellant asserted that her claim’s commencement only around six weeks after the limitation period’s expiration did not prejudice the respondent. She argued that the respondent knew about her employment issues based on certain correspondence.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs in the agreed amount of $25,000, including disbursements and taxes.
First, the appeal court ruled that the appellant commenced the claim after the expiration of the limitation period.
The appeal court noted that the courts had suspended limitation periods until Sept. 14, 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, at the time the appellant’s claim was discoverable from around Apr. 30, 2020 to May 22, 2020.
The appeal court concluded that the relevant limitation period began running on Sept. 14, 2020 and expired on Sept. 14, 2022. The appeal court found that the appellant initiated her claim on Oct. 27, 2022, which fell beyond the relevant two-year limitation period.
The appeal court determined that the motion judge correctly rejected the argument citing McAuley, a case where the claim was discoverable and the limitation period was running before the suspension of limitation periods began on Mar. 16, 2020.
According to the appeal court, in the present case, the two-year period started running after the suspension of limitation periods ended on Sept. 14, 2020, because the claim became discoverable after the suspension had begun. Thus, the appeal court saw no need to add 183 days to the limitation period.
Regarding the appellant’s alternative argument, the appeal court held that the Limitations Act did not offer the discretionary relief sought by the appellant.
Lastly, the appeal court found it unnecessary to hear submissions regarding the jurisdictional issue, given its conclusion on the first issue.
