The Starting Point of Extinctive Prescription vs ... · The Starting Point of Extinctive...

The Starting Point of Extinctive Prescription vs. Knowledge of a Defect Revealed in an Expert’s Report

Our newsleers aim to bring to your aen�on the contemporary legal issues which we believe are and should be of interest to the public at large and under no

circumstances are they to be considered as legal opinions. The newsleers are merely intended to alert readers to interes�ng topics and/or new developments in

law. © 2014 – RSS. No part of this newsleer may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmied, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechani-

cal, photocopying, recording or otherwise, unless the iden�ty of the RSS newsleer is men�onned in wri�ng on the face of the reproduc�on.

Ms Alissar Kassouf joined

RSS as a student in 2012

and as a lawyer in 2013.

Her main prac�ce areas

include insurance law and

civil liability.

April 2014

800 du Square Victoria #4600 Montreal QC H4Z 1H6 • T 514.878.2631 • F 514.878.1865 • www.rsslex.com

The Superior Court recently reminded

us of an important principle in its ruling

in Boisvert v. Construc�on Normand

Guimont inc.: the moment when

knowledge of a defect revealed in an

expert’s report is acquired does not

necessarily cons�tute the star�ng point

of ex�nc�ve prescrip�on.

Plain�ff took ac�on in December 2011

against his contractors alleging faulty

execu�on of the construc�on contracts

a1er water infiltra�ons had occurred in

his residence in 2008 and 2009.

The expert’s report ordered by plain�ff

and dated March 28, 2012 revealed

that the residence’s architectural de-

sign contained defects which would be

the cause of the water infiltra�ons.

In light of this informa�on, plain�ff fi-

led on April 13, 2013 an amended in-

troductory mo�on adding, as defen-

dants, the architect firms who drew the

plans.

However, said defendants sought dis-

missal of the ac�on taken against them

by pleading ex�nc�ve prescrip�on.

More than three years had gone by

since the water infiltra�ons had oc-

curred and the moment defendants

were brought into the ac�on.

It was admied by all par�es that since

there was no solidarity between all de-

fendants, the ac�on served to the ini-

�al defendants had not interrupted the

prescrip�on against the architects.

However, plain�ff claimed that the de-

lay for prescrip�on should be com-

puted from the moment when he ac-

quired knowledge of the content of the

expert’s report which revealed the

cause of the damages.

In accordance with the interpreta�on

of 2926 CCQ favored by the Court of

Appeal in Sicé v. Langlois, the Hono-

rable Jus�ce Suzanne Ouellet states

that the delay for prescrip�on starts

(See next page)

running only when the damage appears

and all legal requirements to exercice

the right of ac�on are met.

In the present maer, the water infiltra-

�ons occurred un�l 2009. The Court was

of the opinion that the fact that an ex-

pert’s report dated March 2012 con-

firmed the cause of these water infiltra-

�ons made no difference:

[13] With regard to prescrip�on, the

appearance of the damage and the

knowledge of its cause should not be

confused. In the same way, prescrip-

�on will not be validly suspended

simply because the party has not yet

determined the precise extent of the

damages that can be claimed. [Our

transla�on]

The Court came to the conclusion that

allowing prescrip�on to be suspended

un�l all experts’ reports are complete

would be tantamount to encouraging

laxity in the conduct of proceedings, in

contradic�on with the very essence of

the concept of ex�nc�ve prescrip�on.

-2 -

• • •