When Does a Condo Corporation's Limitation Clock Start?

When Does the Two-Year Limitation Period Start for a Condo Corporation?

The two-year limitation period starts when the corporation—or someone acting as its agent—first has enough information to bring a legal claim, not necessarily when the board of directors is personally informed. The Court of Appeal confirmed this principle in Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2587 v. Rock Contracting Services & Management Inc., 2026 ONCA 602 (CanLII), dismissing the corporation’s appeal and upholding a finding that its action was statute-barred.

Understanding how and when limitation periods begin is essential for any condo corporation dealing with property damage. Our Ontario litigation lawyers regularly advise clients on these time-sensitive issues.

What Happened in This Case?

A crane or scissors lift being used at a neighbouring building struck the condominium’s structure in October 2019, causing over $400,000 in damage to the concrete above the parking garage. The building’s concierge reported the damage to the property manager the same day it occurred. The property manager directed security to photograph the damage, and met with the contractor a few business days later.

The corporation’s board of directors only learned about the incident through an email from the property manager the following week. The corporation did not issue its Notice of Action until April 2022—more than two and a half years after the damage occurred.

Does a Property Manager’s Knowledge Count as the Corporation’s Knowledge?

Yes. A property manager who acts as an agent of the corporation is treated in law as if the corporation itself had that knowledge. The motion judge found—and the Court of Appeal agreed—that the property manager’s awareness of the damage on the day it occurred was attributed directly to the corporation for limitation period purposes.

This is a significant point for condo boards. Many boards assume the clock starts when they personally receive notice. In reality, the clock may start the moment an agent with authority—like a property manager—learns of the problem.

What Evidence Did the Corporation File, and Why Did It Fall Short?

The corporation filed two affidavits from a board member, but the board member only learned of the incident through the property manager’s email a week after the fact. He had no direct knowledge of what was known on the day of the damage.

The corporation filed no evidence from the property manager or the concierge—the two individuals who were actually on site and informed on the day the damage occurred. Under the Limitations Act, 2002, there is a legal presumption that a claim is discoverable on the day the act or omission takes place. To push that date later, the claimant must file evidence that rebuts that presumption. Without testimony from the people who had first-hand knowledge, the corporation could not discharge that burden.

Does Not Knowing the Contractor’s Name Delay the Start of the Limitation Period?

Not automatically—and not in this case. The corporation argued that because the contractor’s name was not confirmed until a few days after the incident, the limitation period should not have started until then. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument.

Even if the exact name of the subcontractor was unknown on day one, the court found that enough information existed to commence a legal action. The corporation then had two full years to identify and name the proper defendants. The absence of one piece of identifying information did not suspend the limitation clock when all other essential elements of the claim were already known.

What Is the Standard of Review for Discoverability Decisions?

Discoverability—the question of when a claim was or should have been discovered—is treated as a question of mixed fact and law. That means an appeal court will only intervene if there is a “palpable and overriding error” in the lower court’s reasoning. It is not enough to argue that a different judge might have reached a different conclusion.

In this case, the Court of Appeal found no such error. The motion judge correctly identified the legal framework under the Limitations Act, 2002, applied the presumption in section 5(2), and reasonably concluded that the presumption was not rebutted. The appellate court deferred to those findings.

Questions and Records to Discuss with a Lawyer

If you are involved in a property damage dispute involving a condominium or a contractor, the following points may be relevant to discuss with legal counsel:

• When did the property manager, concierge, or any other agent of the corporation first become aware of the damage?
• Are there incident reports, photographs, emails, or security footage from the day of the event?
• Who has authority to act on behalf of the corporation, and when did each person learn what?
• Has the two-year limitation period been considered, and is there evidence available to rebut the statutory presumption of discoverability?
• Are all potentially responsible parties—contractors, subcontractors, adjacent property owners—identified in any proposed claim?

If you are a condo corporation or a property owner in the Greater Toronto Area dealing with a contractor dispute, our Toronto litigation lawyers and Mississauga litigation lawyers are familiar with the procedural and evidentiary demands these cases involve.

If you have questions about a property damage claim or a limitation period issue in Ontario, you are welcome to reach out to UL Lawyers through /connect to discuss your circumstances.

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.