BETWEEN
ONT ARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
SMALL CLAIMS COURT
Richmond Hill
ORDER OF THE COURT
Claim No. SC-25-00001656-0000
MARIO FUSARO
Plaintiff(s)
and
PRIMMUM INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendants(s)
BEFORE: Deputy Judge ROSSI
HELD BY: D In person IB] Videoconference D Teleconference D In writing D Hybrid
EVENT TYPE: Motion on notice
APPEARING: (Names, emails, and phone numbers)
Plaintiff(s): MARIO FUSARO (MARIO@MISTERCONDO.CA)(647-545-9342)
Representati\A9:
Defendant(s): PRIMMUM INSURANCE COMPANY (877-663-6665) Representati1.A9: SELINA FERENAC (SFERENAC@ZTGH.COM) (416-777-2811)
Present Present D
Present x
Present
See Order of Deputy Judge Rossi dated March 19, 2026, attached as Schedule "A".
SCHEDULE “A” – ORDER
Court File No. SC-25-00001656-0000 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RICHMOND HILL SMALL CLAIMS COURT
BETWEEN:
MARIO FUSARO
-and-
Plaintiff
PRIMMUM INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant
Plaintiff – self represented
Defendant - represented by Selina Ferenac, lawyer Date of Order: March 19, 2026
ORDER
1.
Background
The defendant has brought this motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim under Rule 12.02(1)(a) and (c) since it is statute barred.
The plaintiff commenced this action against his insurance company on May 27, 2025 alleging the defendant improperly refused to pay his insurance claim related to the alleged theft of his vehicle. The plaintiff alleges his vehicle was stolen on either October 28 or 29, 2023. The defendant denies the claim for the reasons set out in the defence, and also pleaded that this action was statute barred.
The defendant provided a copy of its letter to the plaintiff dated December 13, 2023, in which it denied coverage. In that same letter, the defendant informed the plaintiff that he had a one year limitation period to commence an action for recovery against the defendant which would expire on October 29, 2024.
In his claim and reply affidavit, the plaintiff attached his correspondence to the defendant dated October 16, 2024 in which he confirms coverage was denied in December 2023. In
that same letter, the plaintiff stated he had received an opinion from legal counsel, and that he requested a reconsideration within 15 days failing which he would explore his legal options including a court action. A representative of the insurer replied on October 31, 2024 to re-confirm the denial of coverage.
The plaintiff also subsequently complained to General Insurance OmbudService (“GIO”), and attached a letter from them dated October 3, 2024 in which GIO indicated that the plaintiff’s complaint was out of GIO’s mandate.
Analysis
This court has jurisdiction to dismiss a claim under Rule 12.02(1)(a) and (c) by reason of the passing of a limitation period. See for example Moses v. Mortgage Central, [2019] O.J. No. 480 (Sm. Cl. Ct.).
Under the Ontario Limitations Act, 2002, section 19(1) therein provides that a limitation period set out in another Act that applies to a claim to which the Limitations Act, 2002 applies is of no effect unless the provision establishing it is listed in the Schedule to the Limitations Act, 2002. The (Section 19) Schedule to the Limitations Act, 2002 lists the Insurance Act, section 148, statutory condition 14 and section 259.1. I also refer to section 19(4) of Limitations Act, 2002 regarding the prevailing priority of the provision referred to in section 19(1).
Accordingly, under those above noted provisions of the Insurance Act, the plaintiff has a limitation period of one year after the happening of the loss or damage to commence an action against his insurer.
The limitation period begins to run on the date of the loss, not the date of denial (see for example, 12955030 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Go Trucking) v. Royal SunAlliance Insurance Co. of Canada, [2009] O.J. No. 76 (S.C.). The plaintiff confirmed the date of loss as October 29, 2023 in both the claim and in his proof of loss to the insurer dated November 7, 2023 filed.
Discovery is not in issue. The limitation period began to run on October 29, 2023. Even if I use the date of denial by the insurer (December 13, 2023), the plaintiff is still out of time.
In this case, the date of loss as indicated by the plaintiff was October 29, 2023, and the plaintiff was fully aware of the denial of coverage in December 2023. There is no evidence of any waiver of the limitation period, nor evidence of any negotiations by the defendant after it issued its denial on December 13, 2023. As stated above, the denial letter informed the plaintiff of the limitation period. Nor is there any evidence of any action on the part of the defendant that would lead the plaintiff to believe the defendant would not rely on that limitation period.
As an aside, I would also add here that by the plaintiff’s own admission in his letter dated October 16, 2024 (being before the expiry of the limitation period), that he acknowledged that he had the benefit of seeking the advice of legal counsel. It is unclear why the plaintiff
waited so long to commence this action.
- The plaintiff’s subsequent complaint to General Insurance OmbudService (“GIO”) did not
extend the limitation period.
As stated above, the defendant informed the plaintiff of the one year limitation period in its letter of December 13, 2023. But regardless, there is no legal duty upon an insurer to advise an insured of the limitation period contained in the policy. The insurer was therefore under no legal obligation to inform the plaintiff of the one-year limitation period, and any failure to do so (which was not the case here) does not prevent it from relying on the limitation period. See for example CAA Insurance Co. (Ontario) v. Botsis, 2006 28552 (ON SCDC), [2006] O.J. No. 3350 (Div. Ct). See also 12955030 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Go Trucking) v. Royal SunAlliance Insurance Co. of Canada, above.
The plaintiff did not issue his claim until May 27, 2025, which was well beyond the one year limitation period.
Conclusion
I therefore dismiss this claim under Rule 12.02(1)(a) and (c) since it is statute barred, and therefore discloses no reasonable cause of action, and would be a waste of time, as it is plain and obvious the plaintiff will have no chance of success.
17.
Costs
This action is dismissed. The defendant only asks for $100 in costs and no disbursements, which is more than reasonable. The plaintiff shall therefore pay the defendant $100 for costs.
DATE: March 19, 2026
DEPUTY JUDGE R. ROSSI