← University
Limitation Periods: When the Clock Starts, When It Stops, and When It's Too Late
0 of 4

A structural engineer's report, delivered to the board of a community services agency on a Thursday afternoon, used language that transformed scattered maintenance concerns into a coherent narrative of construction failure. The report documented foundation settlement, inadequate waterproofing membrane installation, and systemic failure of the drainage system surrounding the building. What had been dismissed as condensation, attributed to humidity, and managed with dehumidifiers was revealed to be progressive water infiltration caused by defects in renovation work completed 4 years earlier.

The agency, a non-profit serving at-risk youth and children through after-school programs and community services, had undertaken a substantial renovation of its facility to modernize the building and expand its programming capacity. The construction work included foundation repairs, waterproofing systems, and interior finishes designed to serve the community for another generation. A general contractor completed the renovation under a written contract with the agency. For approximately 2 years following substantial completion, the building appeared to function as intended.

The first indication of a problem appeared when the executive director noticed dampness in a basement storage corner approximately 6 months before the issue demanded serious attention. The facilities manager attributed the moisture to condensation and recommended running a dehumidifier. Several months later, an intake coordinator arriving early for a morning program discovered that hallway carpet had developed a ridge and felt damp beneath the surface. She mentioned it to maintenance staff and continued with her duties. Neither observation triggered investigation into the renovation work or communication with the contractor.

The situation progressed from subtle signs to undeniable damage. Water began actively infiltrating basement walls, laminate flooring warped, and the smell of mold became evident in program spaces. Ceiling tiles in the main program hall developed spreading water stains. By the time the board commissioned the structural engineering assessment, water damage had extended well beyond cosmetic concerns into the building's structural systems.

The agency's board of volunteer directors now confronted several interconnected questions. The renovation contract contained provisions addressing dispute resolution and notice requirements. Communications between the agency and the contractor following early moisture concerns existed in various forms. The 2-year limitation period under the provincial Limitations Act applied to claims arising from the renovation, but determining when that period began to run required analyzing what the agency knew, when it knew it, and when it ought to have known enough to commence legal proceedings. The board faced the possibility that the window for holding the contractor accountable had narrowed considerably, or had already closed, while they were still discovering the full scope of what had gone wrong.

The Basic Limitation Period: Two Years from Discovery

The executive director stood at the threshold of the basement storage room, watching a thin stream of water trace its way down the concrete wall and pool on the floor where it had already begun to warp the laminate flooring installed just three years earlier. Above her, she could hear the muffled sounds of the after-school program, children's voices echoing through a building that had been renovated specifically to serve them. She had noticed dampness in this corner six months ago, had mentioned it casually to the facilities manager, who had attributed it to condensation and suggested they run a dehumidifier. Now, with water actively infiltrating the wall and the unmistakable smell of mold beginning to permeate the space, she understood that the problem was something far more serious. What she did not yet understand was that this moment—standing in a basement watching water damage unfold—would become the subject of intense legal scrutiny, the fulcrum upon which a limitation period analysis would turn, and the focal point of a dispute that would consume the organization's attention for years to come.

The Limitations Act of Alberta establishes a framework that governs when claims must be brought and when they are forever barred. At the heart of this framework lies the basic limitation period: two years. This period appears simple on its face, a straightforward deadline that claimants must meet or forfeit their right to pursue remedies through the courts. Yet the apparent simplicity of a two-year window belies the considerable complexity that surrounds its application. The critical question is not merely how long the period runs but when it begins. Alberta law answers this question through the discoverability principle, which provides that the limitation period does not commence on the date when the wrongful act occurred, nor necessarily on the date when damage first manifested, but rather on the date when the claimant knew or ought to have known that the injury, loss, or damage had occurred, that it was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission, and that the act or omission was that of the defendant. This three-part test determines the moment of discovery, and from that moment, the clock begins its inexorable countdown.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $79 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.