Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 AUGUST 2013

The Second Opinion: Appellate Court Addresses Limitation Period Issues Regarding Misrepresentation Claims

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

The Weldon case represents a cautionary tale which highlights that, in Canada, when a misrepresentation causes a victim to receive something less than what was represented to him or her, the limitation period begins to run immediately.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

When does a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation crystalize such that it triggers the running of the applicable limitation period?  The British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed this issue recently in Weldon v. Teck Metals Ltd., 2013 BCCA 358.

The pertinent facts of the Weldon case are as follows.  The employees of the defendant Teck participated in a defined benefit pension plan.  The defendant Teck offered the employees the option of transferring their pensions from the defined benefit plan to a newly-established defined contribution pension plan, effective January 1, 1993.  The plaintiffs chose to do so.  However, the plaintiffs subsequently alleged that Teck (along with its consultants) provided them with inaccurate and incomplete information regarding the risks and benefits of transferring their pensions, and ultimately commenced legal proceedings in 2009 and 2011, respectively.  The employees' claims were framed in negligent misrepresentation (among

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from