Huether v. Sharpe, 2025 ONCA 140
Limitation periods typically don’t start running until the wrongful conduct ends. Take the simple example of a trespasser — the limitation period would usually start running when they leave, not when they arrive.
But how far does that principle get you?
Not very far, according to the Ontario Court of Appeal. This case is a great reminder about the nature of continuous wrongs — and the importance of home inspections.
What happened: A couple bought a home with a defective foundation. They blamed the municipality — arguing that the Township of McMurrich Monteith did a poor job supervising construction. But the home was built in the ’80s. And the couple didn’t buy the home until 2021. Ontario’s 15-year ultimate limitation period expired before they moved in.
Despite the passage of time, the Superior Court of Justice refused to dismiss the couple’s claim — a conclusion that stemmed from an open work order. The municipality inspected the home during construction, saw defects, and ordered work to be done. But staff failed to ensure the work was actually completed and treated the work order as closed.
- In the motion judge’s view, the Township’s negligence continued every day the work order remained open. And that meant the limitation period never started to run.
But the Court of Appeal disagreed: The Court said the motion judge misinterpreted what it means for wrongful conduct to be “continuous”.
These excerpts sum the case up nicely:
Continuing causes of action are uncommon.
Paras 42-51
[A]ctionable conduct is not continuing merely because it can be rectified or because the harm it causes is either continuing or delayed.
Whether the [work order] was actually closed or was merely (mistakenly) regarded as being closed, the key point is that there was no difference in the subsequent behaviour of the Township, which regarded the file as dormant and later placed it into storage.
[This is not a situation] where there is repeating actionable conduct that mitigates concerns over stale evidence. Rather, this proceeding exemplifies the observation of the Alberta Court of Appeal … that “trying to find and test evidence about events decades old is usually roulette, not a serious exploration of the truth.”