The plaintiff was injured while riding on a paratransit bus and brought an action against the bus company and driver in both tort and contract nearly two years later.
She also sued her former solicitors for failing to bring the claim within the one-year limitation period for 'damages occasioned by a motor vehicle' under the Highway Traffic Act.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that a substantive approach must be taken to determine if the presence of a motor vehicle is the dominant feature of the claim, regardless of whether it is framed in tort or contract.
The Court concluded that the damages were occasioned by a motor vehicle, meaning the action against the bus company and driver was statute-barred, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with her negligence claim against her former solicitors.
