When Does the Clock Start on a Mesh Injury Claim in Ontario?

When Does the Two-Year Limitation Period Start for a Mesh Injury?

The two-year clock starts when you knew — or reasonably should have known — that you were injured, that the injury was linked to the mesh, and that suing was an appropriate option. Ontario’s Court of Appeal confirmed this in Wiebe v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., 2026 ONCA 597 (CanLII), dismissing appeals from patients whose claims were found to be time-barred.

This is the discoverability rule under section 5(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002. It sounds protective — and it is — but the court’s message is clear: once the key facts are reasonably within your grasp, the clock runs whether or not you have acted on them.

Does Waiting to See a Lawyer Pause the Limitation Period?

No — waiting to consult a lawyer does not automatically pause the two-year limitation period. The court applied the principle from Dale v. Frank and confirmed that the clock does not stop simply because someone has not yet obtained legal advice or has not yet decided whether litigation is worthwhile.

This is one of the most common misunderstandings in personal injury cases. Many people assume the period only starts once they have spoken to counsel and been told they have a viable claim. Ontario courts have consistently rejected that approach. If the underlying facts — injury, cause, and the option to sue — were reasonably knowable, the period runs from that point.

Does Seeing a Mesh Lawsuit Advertisement Start the Clock?

Not automatically, but it can be part of the picture. The court found that advertisements, general internet information, and law firm product lists are not, on their own, “new material information” that triggers discoverability.

However, those items can be relevant context. If a person saw advertising about mesh lawsuits, already knew they had been injured, and already suspected the mesh was the cause, a court may find that a reasonable person in that position would have investigated further. The question is always what a reasonable person would have done with the information they had at the time.

What If You Didn’t Know Who Manufactured Your Mesh?

Not knowing the manufacturer’s name does not automatically extend the limitation period. The court found that the manufacturer’s identity was ascertainable from medical records with reasonable diligence — meaning patients who asked for and reviewed their own records could have found that information.

This matters because some claimants argued the clock should not run until they confirmed which company made the device. The court disagreed. If the answer was available in documents you could have requested, you are treated as having had access to it. Reasonable diligence is expected.

Did the Motion Judge Need to Pinpoint the Exact Discovery Date?

No — a motion judge does not need to identify the precise date a claim was discovered, as long as the reasons adequately explain why the claim is out of time. The court distinguished Morrison v. Barzo and found it was sufficient that the judge explained the claims were issued well beyond two years after the relevant facts were known, with only a brief window allowed to obtain medical records.

This is a practical point for litigants: courts look at the overall picture. If the gap between when you knew the key facts and when you filed is obviously more than two years, the absence of an exact discovery date in the reasons will not save the claim on appeal.

What Is the Practical Effect on Medical Device Claims in Ontario?

For anyone who believes they were harmed by a medical device, this decision reinforces that time is genuinely of the essence. The combination of the discoverability rule and the reasonable diligence standard means the clock can start earlier than many people expect — sometimes well before a lawyer is involved.

Our Ontario litigation lawyers regularly advise clients on limitation period questions in product liability and personal injury matters. If you are in the Hamilton or Burlington area and have concerns about a potential claim, our Burlington litigation team and Hamilton litigation team are available to discuss your situation.

Questions and Records to Discuss with a Lawyer

• When did you first notice symptoms or complications that you now connect to the medical device?
• Have you requested and reviewed your complete surgical and hospital records, including device or implant information?
• Were you aware of any public reporting, advertising, or news coverage about the device before you sought legal advice?
• What steps, if any, did you take to investigate the cause of your injury after you first suspected the device was involved?
• Are there any documents — such as discharge summaries or operative reports — that identify the device manufacturer or model?

If you have questions about a potential medical device claim or a limitation period concern, you are welcome to reach out to UL Lawyers through our contact page 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.