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
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

Limitation Periods and Singular Discrete Oppressive Acts

By Ara Basmadjian
July 9, 2020
  • Commercial Litigation
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

In Zhao v Li, 2020 ONCA 121, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered how the two-year basic limitation period under section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, Sched B applies to oppression remedy claims under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, RSO 1990, c B.16 when the claims arise from a series of oppressive acts alleged to have occurred at different times.

The appellant was a shareholder in a dry cleaning business. She commenced a lawsuit against the respondent based on three alleged acts or omissions: (1) the respondent unilaterally dissolved the business without the approval, authority, or knowledge of the appellant; (2) the respondent failed to pay the proceeds of the sale or transfer of the business; and (3) the respondent failed to account for the profits of the business.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the principles in Maurice v Alles, 2016 ONCA 287, which provide as follows:

[28]         […] where what is complained of is a series of singular discrete acts of oppression over a period of time, claims arising from the acts committed or discoverable within two years of the action are not statute barred, even if the series of acts commenced, and claims for earlier oppressive acts in the series were discoverable, more than two years prior to the commencement of the action. A later oppressive act, even if based on or in furtherance of earlier oppressive acts, gives rise to a new cause of action because it is new oppressive conduct: at paras. 3 and 50-54.

[29]         Although not expressly stated in Maurice, it follows that claims arising from singular discrete acts of oppression (in a series of such acts) that are discoverable more than two years before an action are statute barred. As a result, a series of singular discrete acts of oppression that stretches over a period of time may result in some claims for oppression arising from earlier acts in the series being statute barred while claims arising from later acts in the series are not.

According to the Court of Appeal, each of the alleged acts or omissions at issue constitute singular discrete oppressive acts as they are different acts or omissions that took place at different times and none of them is dependent upon either of the others taking place for oppression to have occurred.

Therefore, although the appellant’s claims related to the sale of the business and the distribution of profits were statute barred, the Court of Appeal determined that the corporate dissolution claim was allowed to proceed because it was a singular discrete oppressive act that occurred or was discoverable within two years of the commencement of the action.

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
commercial litigation, Limitation periods
Ara Basmadjian

About Ara Basmadjian

Ara Basmadjian is a partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group at Dentons Canada LLP. His practice involves a variety of complex corporate, commercial and civil litigation matters. Ara has particular experience in cases involving commercial contracts, negligence, product liability, class actions, limitations law, cannabis in Canada, and extraordinary remedies, such as injunctions.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Judicial Review

No secret note passing –  Alberta Court of Appeal confirms full disclosure in judicial review

By Laurie Livingstone, Dan Collins, and Lyndsee Thompson
  • Commercial Litigation

Common law enforceability of ricochet judgments: The ONCA decision in HMB Holdings v Antigua

By Chloe Snider, Laurie Livingstone, and Camila Maldi
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Privacy

Intrusion upon seclusion is not concerned with dissemination: No privacy breach where lawfully obtained information used to terminate employee

By Sasha Coutu

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Arbitration
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Covid-19
  • Energy
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Technology and new media
  • White Collar Crime
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2023 Dentons

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