The defendants in these three, related product liability actions brought successful summary judgment motions on the basis that the plaintiffs’ claims were limitation barred. The defendants manufactured polypropylene mesh products, which were implanted in each of the plaintiffs during hernia repair surgeries. Each plaintiff experienced complications requiring one or more revision surgeries. Each plaintiff commenced their lawsuit more than three years after the final revision surgery and removal of the mesh.
The plaintiffs appealed the decision on the summary judgment motions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, upholding dismissal of the
actions. The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge correctly found that, with due diligence, the appellants ought to have discovered their claim shortly after removal of the mesh. All of the requirements of s. 5(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002 were met by that point, triggering the running of the two-year limitation period. Further, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge was not required to make a specific finding as to when the claim was discovered. The motion judge adequately explained what each plaintiff knew or ought to have known within months of their revision surgery, and that the claims were issued well beyond the two-year limitation period. This was sufficient in the circumstances of these cases.