People injured in motor vehicle accidents may not be able to postpone the limitation period for bringing a personal injury claim

Limitation periods start when a Plaintiff has, or ought to have, discovered a viable cause of action for any head of damage.  However, a Plaintiff can only commence one action for damages arising from the tortuous conduct.  This could result in no postponement of limitation periods for people involved in motor vehicle accidents in which vehiclar damage occurs.  In such an accident the limitation period for all potential heads of damage would commence as soon as he or she recognized that he or she suffered damage to their vehicle; despite the fact that other heads of damages may not be discovered until after the expiration of the limitation period.

Terry Robertson, Q.C. and I argued a case called Craig v. ICBC, upheld on appeal, which appears to open the door to this argument. Here is a link to an article that I wrote on this issue in 2005 and recently updated in June 2007.

This article will analyse the decision of Craig v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia 2003 BCSC 1856 upheld on appeal at 2005 BCCA 275. Essentially Craig v. ICBC stands for the proposition that the discoverability provisions contained in the Limitation Act will not postpone the running of the limitation period for minor injuries that worsen substantially over time; or when independent, more serious, injuries are discovered after the expiration of the initial limitation period. It can be argued that the reasoning in Craig v. ICBC could be used to argue that the limitation period for an owner of a motor vehicle injured in an automobile accident begins as soon as vehicular damage is discovered, and would bar any claim for damages arising after the expiration of the initial limitation period for vehicular damage.

In Vance v. Peglar (1996), 22 B.C.L.R. (3d) 251 (B.C.C.A.), Chief Justice McEachern provided his understanding as to why the law includes limitation statutes, by referring to the following passage from the Report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Limitation of Actions 9, 10 (1969), adopted by the British Columbia Law Reform Commission’s Report on Limitations, (Project No. 6), 1974, Part II, General:

These laws are designed to prevent persons from beginning actions once that reasonable time has passed. Underlying the policy is a recognition that it is not fair that an individual should be subject indefinitely to the threat of being sued over a particular matter. Nor is it in the interests of the community that disputes should be capable of dragging on interminably. Furthermore, evidentiary problems are likely to arise as time passes. Witnesses become forgetful or die. Documents may be lost or destroyed. Certainly, it is desirable that, at some point, there should be an end to the possibility of litigation in any dispute.  [Emphasis added]

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.