Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Judicial Review and Public Law
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

Rausch v. Pickering (City), 2013 ONCA 740 (adding a claim after expiration of limitation period)

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
December 18, 2013
  • Discoverability
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Rausch v Pickering (City), 2013 ONCA 740, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a claim may be added after the 2-year limitation period has expired, so long as the claim flows from facts already pleaded. 

In Rausch,the City of Pickering had shut down the respondent’s boar farming business pursuant to a municipal by-law that restricted the keeping of certain animals. In 2007, the respondent sued the City for damages on the basis of trespass, abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Four years later, the respondent sought leave to add a claim in negligence alleging that the City breached section 6 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, (“FFPPA”), which prevents a municipal by-law from restricting a normal farm practice that is part of an agricultural operation. The Master granted the order, finding that the negligence claim arose out of facts already pleaded in the statement of claim. The City subsequently moved to strike the respondent’s pleadings pursuant to Rule 21 of theRules of Civil Procedure. The Motions Judge dismissed the motion, and the Divisional Court upheld the decision. The City appealed.

One of the issues considered by the Ontario Court of Appeal was whether the respondent’s negligence claim was statute-barred given that it was added four years after the filing of the original suit. The Court of Appeal found that it was not, as no new cause of action was pled. Epstein J.A., for the majority, held that the respondent’s claim advanced an alternative theory of liability based on the same facts, and not a new cause of action. Epstein J.A. allowed the amendments, stating at para. 102:

“[R]elying on a common law duty as opposed to a statutory one is merely relying on a different legal path to reach the same conclusion. Moreover, Mr. Rausch’s pleadings already allege the material facts necessary to support such a claim. Thus, in relying on a common law duty of care, Mr. Rausch asserts an alternative theory of liability flowing from the facts as pleaded. His claim is therefore not barred by the limitations period.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Dentons Limitations Law Group

About Dentons Limitations Law Group

The Limitations Law Blog contains summaries of the latest developments arising from appellate and lower court decisions on limitations law in Ontario and on recent limitations law developments in Ontario.

All posts

RELATED POSTS

  • Discoverability
  • Misnomer

Ontario Superior Court of Justice Summarizes Principles of Misnomer and Discoverability

By Ara Basmadjian
  • Discoverability
  • Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"

Supreme Court of Canada determines that limitation period contained in s. 36(4)(a)(i) of the Competition Act is subject to discoverability

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • Discoverability

When Does a Claimant Know About Damages in a Solicitor’s Negligence Claim?

By Ara Basmadjian and Nicole Tzannidakis

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Acknowledgement
  • Adding a Party
  • Administrative Law
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Amending Pleadings
  • Arbitration
  • attempted resolution
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Contribution and Indemnity
  • Covid-19
  • Demand Obligations
  • Discoverability
  • Energy
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review and Public Law
  • Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"
  • Limitation Periods in Federal Court
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Misnomer
  • Motions to Strike
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Quarterly privacy litigation digest
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Special Circumstances
  • Statutory Variation of Time Limits
  • Successors
  • Technology and new media
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements
  • Transitional Provisions
  • Ultimate Limitation Periods
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site