When does the two-year limitation period start in an Ontario car accident claim?
The two-year clock on an Ontario car accident lawsuit starts running the moment a reasonable person in your position would have known — or should have known — that their injuries likely met the legal threshold for a court claim. That moment may arrive well before you receive a formal diagnosis or stop hoping you will fully recover.
In Lloyd v. Baker, 2026 ONCA 434 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motor vehicle accident action because the injured person had enough information, much earlier than they filed, to trigger the limitation period. The decision is a sharp reminder that optimism about recovery is not a legal excuse for delay.
What is the “threshold” under the Insurance Act, and why does it matter?
Ontario’s Insurance Act, s. 267.5 limits the right to sue for pain and suffering unless the injured person has suffered a “permanent serious impairment” of an important physical, mental, or psychological function. This threshold is not just a trial issue — it also determines when your claim becomes legally discoverable.
Once you have enough information to believe your injuries likely meet that threshold, the two-year limitation period begins. You do not need a formal expert opinion, a final diagnosis, or confirmation from a specialist. Persistent, debilitating symptoms combined with notes from treating health-care providers can be enough.
What did the Court of Appeal decide in this case?
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal and dismissed the action entirely. The motion judge had treated the injured person’s genuine belief that they might still recover as the deciding factor — essentially accepting that hope of improvement kept the claim undiscoverable. The Court of Appeal said that was a legal error.
The correct analysis under s. 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, 2002 asks what a reasonable person with the same symptoms, the same medical history, and the same access to information ought to have known, and whether they exercised appropriate due diligence to investigate. The record in this case — including ongoing debilitating symptoms and treating physicians’ notes — compelled the conclusion that the injured person knew, or should have known, much earlier that their injuries likely met the threshold. There was no new diagnosis, no change in prognosis, and no new event that reset the clock.
Does hoping for a full recovery pause the limitation period?
No — hope alone does not pause the limitation period. This is one of the most important practical points from this decision. A sincere belief that you will eventually return to 100 percent does not satisfy the due diligence requirement under s. 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, 2002.
The Court of Appeal noted that the injured person had even received counselling indicating a full recovery was unlikely, yet that information was not given proper weight by the motion judge. Where the medical record already signals that permanent impairment is a real possibility, a plaintiff cannot simply wait and see. They are expected to take reasonable steps to understand the legal significance of their condition.
Do you need an expert opinion before the limitation period is triggered?
No — an expert opinion is not required to start the limitation clock. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the threshold for discoverability is whether a reasonable person likely meets the Insurance Act threshold, not whether that threshold has been proven. Treating physicians’ clinical notes and a pattern of persistent symptoms can be sufficient to trigger discoverability, even without a formal medico-legal report.
This matters because many injured people wait until they have a completed expert report before speaking to a lawyer. By then, the two-year window may already have closed.
How do courts decide when a car accident claim was actually discoverable?
Courts apply a two-part test drawn from cases like Sanei, Peixeiro, and Andrews. First, they look at s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, which creates a rebuttable presumption that you discovered your claim on the day it arose. Second, if you argue you discovered it later, you must satisfy s. 5(1)(b): a reasonable person with your abilities and in your circumstances would not have known about the claim earlier, and you exercised due diligence to discover it.
Courts look at the whole medical record — appointment notes, referrals, physiotherapy records, and any advice you received about your prognosis. A gap between what you were told and what you chose to act on can be fatal to a late-filed claim. Our Ontario motor vehicle accident lawyers regularly advise clients on exactly this kind of timing issue before it becomes a problem.
Practical takeaways for injured drivers and passengers
- See a lawyer early. If you are still experiencing significant symptoms three to six months after a collision, consult a personal injury lawyer before the two-year mark — not after.
- Do not wait for a “final” diagnosis. Persistent symptoms and treating-physician notes may already be enough to start the clock, even without a specialist’s report.
- Keep all medical records. Every appointment note, referral letter, and physiotherapy report is potential evidence of when you knew — or should have known — about the seriousness of your injuries.
- Take prognosis conversations seriously. If a doctor or counsellor tells you that a full recovery is uncertain or unlikely, that conversation is legally significant and should prompt you to get legal advice promptly.
- Do not rely on hope as a strategy. Optimism about recovery, however genuine, does not satisfy the due diligence requirement under Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002.
If you were injured in a collision in the Hamilton or Burlington area, our team handles these claims locally — visit our Burlington motor vehicle accident page or our Hamilton motor vehicle accident page for more information.
UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from our Burlington office and works with clients across Ontario. If you are worried about a limitation period in your accident claim, speak with our car accident legal team before time runs out.
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.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
In most cases, you have two years from the date you discovered — or reasonably should have discovered — that you have a claim. That date is not always the date of the accident itself, but it can be earlier than you expect if your symptoms were persistent and your medical records signalled a serious injury.
Once a limitation period expires, your right to sue is generally lost and a court will dismiss the action. There are very limited exceptions, such as claims involving minors or persons under a legal disability, but these do not apply to most adult plaintiffs.
A permanent serious impairment under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act is a lasting and significant loss of an important physical, mental, or psychological function caused by the accident. Whether your injuries meet this threshold is assessed on the specific facts of your case, and you do not need a formal expert opinion to trigger the limitation period.