Albert v. Canada
T-203-95
Hargrave P.
1/3/95
6 pp.
Motion to strike statement of claim on basis action commenced after expiry of two-year limitation period pursuant to Act, s. 3(1) -- Plaintiff moving into YMCA accommodations while on parole -- RCMP checking plaintiff's presence as matter of routine -- Subsequent to RCMP inquiry, YMCA attempting to get plaintiff to leave accommodation -- Plaintiff contending inquiry thwarting efforts to obtain employment with YMCA as cleaner-Plaintiff's claim, seeking order prohibiting future RCMP inquiries, not filed within statutory limitation period -- Plaintiff contending no knowledge or understanding of limitation period-Ignorance of time limitations no excuse -- Many reasons for statutory limitation (M.(K.) v. M.(H.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; Mew, Law of Limitations, Butterworths, 1991) including protection from: (1) stale disputes; (2) unreliable evidence due to difficulties with witness location and recollection, and lost or destroyed documents; (3) increased economic cost associated with maintaining records indefinitely; (4) changes in values, standards and conduct of reasonable person over time -- Plaintiff bound by Act -- Although plaintiff may not have known identity of RCMP constables involved in inquiry, identity could have been discovered with reasonable diligence (Krusel v. Firth (1991), 58 B.C.L.R. (2d) 145 (C.A.))-Plaintiff, as reasonable person, may be deemed to have taken advice from notional professional advisor in deciding, before lapse of limitation period, prospect of success of action and whether or not he ought to bring action (Levitt v. Carr (1992), 66 B.C.L.R. (2d) 58; Gibbens, R.D. "Section 6 of the Limitation Act -- Postponement" (1994), 52 Advocate 737) -- Act substantive: once time expired, cause of action extinguished -- Plaintiff having no cause of action-Motion granted -- Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 236, ss. 3(1) (as am. by S.B.C. 1992, c. 44, s. 1), 6.