The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add a corporate defendant alleged to own the property where an ATV accident occurred.
The proposed amendment was sought after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The court considered whether the discoverability rule under s. 5 of the Act postponed the running of the limitation period because the plaintiffs did not know, and could not reasonably have known through due diligence, that the accident occurred on land owned by the proposed defendant.
The court found the plaintiffs had undertaken significant investigative steps after the accident and reasonably believed another party owned the land until survey evidence disclosed otherwise.
The court concluded that a letter from defence counsel denying ownership constituted the triggering event requiring renewed diligence and that the plaintiffs acted within two years of that event.
Leave was therefore granted to add the proposed defendant, without prejudice to it to plead a limitation defence.
