at
When people are injured in a motor vehicle accident, it is common to focus on medical treatment and hope for a full recovery. Unfortunately, waiting too long to seek legal advice can have serious consequences. A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Lloyd v. Baker, 2026 ONCA 434, highlights the importance of understanding limitation periods and acting promptly to protect your legal rights.
The plaintiff, Joanne Lloyd, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on November 24, 2015. She suffered a concussion after the vehicle in which she was a passenger was struck by the defendant. At the time of the accident, she was already recovering from an earlier workplace concussion and had been preparing to return to work.
Although Ms. Lloyd initially expected to make a full recovery, her symptoms continued for years. Medical records documented ongoing physical and cognitive difficulties, and although she returned to work in early 2016, she never resumed her regular full-time duties. Multiple healthcare providers diagnosed her with post-concussion syndrome and noted the persistence of her symptoms.
Importantly, by December 2016, one of her treating physicians had discussed the possibility that she might never return to her previous level of functioning. In 2018, another physician expressed the view that it was unlikely any treatment would suddenly cure her condition.
Despite these concerns, Ms. Lloyd did not commence a lawsuit until November 8, 2021, almost 6 years after the accident.
The defendant automobile insurer asked to court to dismiss the court action because it was commenced more than 2 years after the accident.
In Ontario, most personal injury lawsuits must be commenced within 2 years of the date the claim is “discovered” under the Limitations Act, 2002. However, motor vehicle accident claims involve a unique consideration: the discoverability principle.
To recover compensation for pain and suffering in many car accident cases, an injured person must demonstrate that they have suffered a permanent serious impairment as defined by the Insurance Act. Courts have recognized that the 2-year limitation period may not begin immediately if the injured person does not yet know, and could not reasonably know, that their injuries are serious and permanent.
The legal question in this case was straightforward: When did Ms. Lloyd know, or when should she reasonably have known, that her injuries likely met the serious and permanent impairment threshold?
The motion judge initially ruled in favour of Ms. Lloyd.
The court accepted her evidence that she believed she would eventually recover from her concussion symptoms. The motion judge concluded that it was not until July 12, 2020, when she met with a neuropsychologist to discuss his report, that she understood her condition was likely permanent. Based on that finding, the judge concluded that the lawsuit issued in November 2021 fell within the 2-year limitation period.
The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed and held that the motion judge failed to properly consider the objective test contained in the Limitations Act, namely, what a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s circumstances ought to have known.
The Court emphasized several important facts:
The Court noted that a plaintiff does not need certainty of success before the limitation period begins. Nor does a person need an expert report confirming that the injury meets the statutory threshold. The limitation period starts once there is enough information to reasonably conclude that the claim may meet the threshold and that legal proceedings are appropriate.
The Court ultimately found that Ms. Lloyd ought to have known that her injuries likely met the threshold well before July 2020. Because the claim was started more than two years after that point, it was statute-barred and dismissed.
This decision serves as an important warning to accident victims throughout Ontario.
Many people assume they should wait until their treatment is complete or until they receive a final diagnosis before consulting a lawyer. That assumption can be dangerous. Limitation periods often begin running long before a person’s medical condition stabilizes.
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the law does not require certainty. A person does not have to know every detail about their injuries or possess a perfect expert report before taking legal action. Instead, courts will examine what the person knew, or what they reasonably should have known, based on their symptoms, medical advice, and overall circumstances.
The decision also highlights the importance of acting with reasonable diligence. If ongoing symptoms suggest that an injury may be serious or permanent, accident victims should seek legal advice promptly rather than waiting for complete medical certainty.
As Lloyd v. Baker demonstrates, waiting too long can mean losing the right to seek compensation altogether. The courts may conclude that you should have recognized the seriousness of your injuries earlier, even if you personally remained hopeful of a full recovery.
If you have been injured in a car accident, speak immediately with an injury lawyer to make sure that your rights to compensation are protected. The partners are Burn Tucker Lachaîne P.C. are certified as Specialists in Civil Litigation by the Law Society of Ontario. Contact us today by texting us at 613-777-0992.
When you’ve been injured because of someone else’s negligence, you have the right to pursue compensation for your losses. However, many injured individuals […]
Congratulations to BTL partner Laurie Tucker for successfully convincing the Licence Appeal Tribunal to reconsider its decision and approve much‑needed attendant care benefits […]
Emotional distress can be just as serious as a physical injury, but it is often harder to prove in court. In Ontario, if […]
Reviews
