The Winmill case provides critical analysis of the issue of discoverability as contained in section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, S.O, 2002[i] and the interpretation of the term “appropriate means” as used in that subsection. This is a crucial consideration when determining discoverability in an action which has been initiated after the conclusion of related proceedings.
Case History
Mr. Winmill brought claim for battery against the Woodstock Police. The issue in this case was whether his claim was brought outside of the applicable limitation period[ii]. It was heard by the Ontario Superior Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal and was eventually denied leave by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Winmill was charged with assaulting an officer and resisting arrest arising from an encounter with the Woodstock Police on June 1, 2014. On February 17, 2016, he was acquitted of both charges. There was no appeal from the acquittal.
On June 2, 2016, Winmill filed a Notice of Action in the Ontario Superior Court against the Woodstock Police seeking damages for: i) negligent investigation; and, ii) assault/battery.
The question of law before the court was whether the limitation period began to run on February 17, 2016, the date Winmill was acquitted in the Criminal Action or on June 1, 2014, the date when the incident and injuries occurred.
The case turned on the fourth condition, set out in subsection 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002, i.e whether, “having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy,” the damage.[iii]. In other words, did Winmill know on June 1, 2014, the date of the incident, that a legal proceeding was an “appropriate means” to seek remedy for the negligence of the Woodstock Police.
Ultimately, the courts held that Winmill’s claim was discovered on February 16, 2017, the date he was acquitted of the criminal charges, as opposed to June 1, 2014, the date when the incident occurred.
Please log in to read the full article.