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

Sandro Steel Fabrication Ltd. v Chiesa, 2013 ONSC 658 (s. 11, Attempted Resolutions)

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
May 30, 2013
  • attempted resolution
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

**THIS DECISION OF JUSTICE KOKE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL ON JUNE 21, 2013, BUT THE COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT ENDORSE HOW BROADLY KOKE J. INTERPRETED SECTION 11(1). PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR BLOG POST OF THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION**

In Sandro Steel Fabrication Ltd. v. Chisea, 2013 ONSC 658, Justice Koke held that a mediation agreement stops a limitation period from running by virtue of section 11 of the Limitations Act, 2002.  That section provides that if a person with a claim and a person against whom the claim is made agree to have an independent third party resolve the claim or assist them in resolving it, the basic and ultimate limitation periods provided for in the Act are suspended as of the date the parties enter into the agreement.

The Court held that section 11 should be given a broad interpretation as its purpose is to encourage settlement. The Court explained that even in circumstances where there is ambiguity as to what issues are to be addressed in the mediation, section 11(1) should operate to suspend the running of the applicable limitation period, otherwise plaintiffs may be reluctant to engage in a mediation process.  Furthermore, an agreement to mediate need not express that the limitation period is suspended until the conclusion of the mediation.  Rather, all that is required to engage section 11 is an agreement between the parties to have an independent third party resolve the claim or assist them in resolving it.

The Court distinguished section 11 of the Act from section 22(3).  The latter refers to an agreement which parties may enter into whereby the limitation period “may be suspended or extended”.  The former does not refer to an agreement to suspend or extend a limitation period, rather it refers to an agreement whereby parties “agree to have an independent third party resolve the claim or assist them in resolving it”. 

It should be noted that the ability of sections 11 and 22(3) to suspend or extend a limitation period only applies to limitation periods under the Act and not those limitation periods which are contained in other legislation referred to in the Schedule to the Act.

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

  • attempted resolution

Sandro Steel Fabrication Ltd. v. Chisea, 2013 ONCA 434 (s. 11, Attempted Resolutions)

By Dentons Limitations Law Group
  • attempted resolution

Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1789 v. Tip Top Lofts Development Inc., 2011 ONSC 7181 (s. 11, Attempted Resolutions)

By Dentons Limitations Law Group

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