The plaintiff, a minor, alleged to have sustained injuries during a high school hockey tryout on February 25, 2013. The plaintiff’s father retained counsel, who wrote the school and its insurer on April 25, 2013, identifying the plaintiff’s father as her litigation guardian and notifying them of the potential action. On May 25, 2017, the plaintiff commenced an action for damages against the school and the school board. Her father swore an affidavit of litigation guardian. The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the action was commenced outside of the limitation period and statute-barred as a result. Justice Beaudoin dismissed the motion, holding that the two year limitation period began to run from the date that the plaintiff’s father swore the affidavit of litigation guardian and not from the date of the notice letter. He reasoned that the legislature demonstrated an intent to protect minors, and that using the date of the notice letter as the date the limitation period began to run would not afford the minor plaintiff any measure of protection. He also raised concern that if the defendants’ position was accepted, then a limitation period could begin to run with a notice letter in some circumstances, but not others, depending on the wording of the letter.
Menu