Call Us Now


Ontario Court of Appeal rules that businesses can contract out of 2 year limitation period

Posted On: January, 23 2015

In May 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal handed down a decision in Boyce v. The Co-Operators General Insurance Company, 2013 ONCA 298,which clarifies when a party can contract out of the limitation periods set by law.

Generally, in civil litigation, a litigant has two years from when the claim was discovered within which to start a law suit.  However, section 22(5) of the Limitations Act, 2002, permits parties to shorten the limitation period when the contract is a “business agreement” as defined in the Act.



In Boyce, the plaintiffs owned and operated a women’s fashion boutique, which was insured by the Co-operators. One day, Ms. Boyce noticed a foul smell coming from the entrance to her store, believing it to be vandalism. She contacted the Co-Operators and filed a proof of loss claim.

The Co-Operators took the position that the damage was caused by a skunk not vandalism, and denied her claim.

The Boyces sued the Co-Operators within the two year statutory limitation period, but after the one year limitation period contained in their insurance contract.  The Co-Operators moved for summary judgment claiming that the action was time barred by the one year limitation period.

Motion for Summary Judgment

At first instance, the motion judge decided that the contractual limitation period did not override the two year limitation period set out in the Act because the provision in the policy lacked the specific language required.  Moreover, the judge concluded the insurance contract was not a “business agreement” for the purposes of varying or excluding the statutory limitation period as required under the Act.


The Co-Operators appealed and the Ontario Court of Appeal overruled the motion judge’s decision, deciding as follows:

  • The insurance policy provides for a one-year limitation on claims in clear and unambiguous language;
  • The four requirements set out by the motion judge as necessary to override the statutory limitation period do not apply for lack of sufficient legal foundation; and
  • The insurance contract was a “business agreement” for the purposes of the Act.

The Court concluded that regardless of whether an insurance contract is described as a “peace of mind” contract, what’s relevant to the question of shortening the statutory limitation period is whether it qualifies as a “business agreement” within the meaning of the Act as opposed to a consumer agreement, which is restricted to insurance for personal, family or household  purposes.  The Court confirmed that consumers cannot contract out of the statutory limitation period, but businesses can.


Contact Us



  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by SB

    "I just wanted to let you know how happy I am with the outcome and how very grateful I am for the guidance and support that you and your team provided.
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Google user

    "Patrick James is really a great lawyer who is smart and great to deal with. He's been our litigation counsel for over 5 years on several different matters. Patrick recently gave our company great strategic advice that resulted in a big commercial litigation win for our company. He's fierce, tenacious, and really cares about getting the best outcome for his clients."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Google user

    "Patrick is a very good lawyer. He recently successfully defended a lawsuit against my company and has pursued several litigation claims for us in the past. All claims settled input favour. Mr. James is smart and quickly gives you great strategic advice. Patrick has been a real asset to our business."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Sandra L.

    "Andrew Wray and Patrick James recently helped settle a difficult situation for me and my family. The results were exactly what we were hoping for. They are honest, strategic and will provide you with the best advice for you and your financial situation. I highly recommend them to everyone I know."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Mark C.

    "Their team is highly focused and incredibly professional - from our experience it would be difficult not to believe that Pinto Wray James are one of Ontario's leading Firms in Labor and Employment law. The mindful client care and complete understanding of the case eased fears and the stress that comes with any legal dispute. Expect to find high level smartly crafted legal solutions at Pinto Wray James LLP - couldn't recommend more."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Sherry C.

    "Patrick is knowledgeable, strategic, supportive, and patient. His guidance and advice helped me to maintain focus and to keep things in perspective. His experience and keen perception provides him with an edge that allows him to assess the situation, the people involved, and to offer a strategic resolution that works best for all involved. If you ever require legal advice and assistance, I highly recommend him and his team. They will be there 100% for you."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Christian V.

    "Patrick is a fearless advocate for diverse clients. His strategic approach, and his empathy, are what set him apart as a litigator, and champion of the underdog."
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by A Google User

    "I have no hesitation recommending Andrew Wray of Pinto Wray James LLP. He provided me with legal advice regarding an employment law issue and his council was practical and honest. Andrew's approach is very much one of blending legal excellence with good common sense. An excellent lawyer!"
  • Rating: 5 Lawyer Toronto - 5 Star Reviews
    Pinto James Reviewed by Larry S.

    "Patrick listens to his clients and shows compassion, empathy and professionalism. He cares deeply that the individual that has been wrongfully terminated gets the best judgment available to him. I would not hesitate in recommending him to friends or family."