Limitation Periods — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Limitation Periods
In Ontario employment law, time is a critical factor that can determine the success or failure of a legal claim. A 'limitation period' is a strict deadline, set by law, for starting a legal proceeding. If you miss this deadline, your right to sue can be extinguished permanently, regardless of the strength of your case. This legal principle ensures that disputes are addressed in a timely manner and provides certainty for all parties.
The primary law governing these deadlines in Ontario is the Limitations Act, 2002. For most employment-related civil claims, such as wrongful dismissal, constructive dismissal, or breach of an employment contract, the basic limitation period is two years. The crucial question is: when does this two-year clock start ticking? The law uses a concept called 'discoverability.' The clock generally starts on the day the claim is 'discovered,' which is the day a reasonable person would have known that a loss or injury occurred and that a legal proceeding would be an appropriate way to seek a remedy. For a wrongful dismissal claim, this is almost always the date of termination, as established in numerous court cases. The law presumes you discovered the claim on the day the event happened, and it is your responsibility to prove otherwise, which is very difficult.
It's vital to understand that not all claims share the same deadline. For instance, claims for discrimination or harassment filed with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario under the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) have a much shorter limitation period of one year from the date of the incident. Similarly, claims for unpaid wages or other entitlements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) filed with the Ministry of Labour also have their own specific time limits. Misunderstanding which deadline applies to your situation can have devastating consequences for your legal rights. Because the calculation of a limitation period can involve nuanced legal arguments, seeking timely professional guidance is a crucial first step in protecting your interests.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the standard limitation period for suing an employer in Ontario?
For most civil employment lawsuits, like wrongful dismissal, the standard limitation period in Ontario is two years from the date the claim was 'discovered,' as outlined in the Limitations Act, 2002.
When does the two-year clock start for a wrongful dismissal claim?
In nearly all wrongful dismissal cases, the limitation period begins on the date your employment is terminated. This is considered the day you 'discover' the loss, and the two-year countdown starts from that point.
Does negotiating a severance package pause the limitation period?
No, it does not. The two-year clock continues to run even while you are in negotiations with your former employer. This is a critical mistake many people make; you must file a claim in court before the deadline, regardless of ongoing discussions.
Is the deadline different for a human rights complaint for discrimination?
Yes. A claim for discrimination or harassment under the Ontario Human Rights Code must be filed with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario within one year of the last incident, a significantly shorter period than the two-year civil limit.
What happens if I miss the limitation period?
If you try to file a claim after the limitation period has expired, your claim will be considered 'statute-barred.' The employer can ask the court to dismiss your case, and the court will almost certainly do so, without even considering the merits of your claim.
Can a limitation period ever be extended in an employment case?
Extensions are extremely rare and should not be relied upon. While courts have very limited power to extend a deadline in exceptional circumstances, such as when an employer actively and fraudulently concealed the cause of action, this is a very high bar to meet.
I was just terminated. When should I see a lawyer about the deadline?
You should consult with an employment lawyer as soon as possible. A lawyer can confirm the exact limitation period for your specific situation and ensure all necessary legal steps are taken well before the deadline expires, protecting your right to seek a remedy.
Common Scenarios
- An employee is terminated and spends eight months negotiating a severance package directly with HR, not realizing the two-year limitation period to sue has been running since their last day of work.
- A marketing manager is constructively dismissed when her salary is cut by 30%, but she waits 2.5 years to file a lawsuit, wrongly believing the clock started when she finally resigned instead of when the pay cut happened.
- A worker experiences a discriminatory incident but waits 14 months to act, only to discover that the one-year limitation period to file an application at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has already passed.
- An employee is terminated but is promised by their manager that they will be rehired for a new project 'in a few months,' causing them to delay legal action beyond the two-year deadline.
What You Should Know
- Immediately document the exact date of your termination or any other significant workplace incident, as this date is likely the starting point for your limitation period.
- To formally stop the clock on a limitation period for a civil claim, a Statement of Claim must be issued by the court. Simply sending a demand letter or negotiating is not enough.
- Be aware that different legal avenues have different deadlines; a civil lawsuit (2 years), a human rights application (1 year), and an ESA claim all have unique time limits.
- Do not delay in seeking legal advice. A lawyer can provide clarity on your specific deadline and prevent you from accidentally forfeiting your legal rights by waiting too long.
Featured Cases
Pascuet v. Sky Service
2025 ONSC 6143 (CanLII) · 2025-10-31Wrongful Dismissal: Claim Dismissed as Statute-Barred
A motion for summary judgment was granted in a wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002. The court applied the discoverability doctrine and ruled that the limitation period began on the date of termination, and the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002.
Adejuyigbe v. Torstar et al.
2022 ONSC 4447 (CanLII) · 2022-07-28Racial Discrimination and Employment Termination: Case Summary
A civil procedure case involving claims of racial discrimination and termination of employment. The court struck the plaintiff's statement of claim for lack of a reasonable cause of action and found the release agreement to be a full answer to the claim. The court also did not need to decide if the claim was statute-barred due to limitation periods.
Fong v. Big Picture Home Entertainment Limited
2020 ONSC 7503 (CanLII) · 2020-12-03Wrongful Dismissal: 19-Year Employee Awarded 20 Months Notice
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff, employed for 19 years, was terminated without cause. The court determined a 20-month notice period based on Bardal factors and awarded full damages, finding the defendant failed to prove avoidable losses during the notice period.
Roderick Stewart v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers
2020 ONSC 5687 (CanLII) · 2020-09-21Workplace Discrimination: Union and Lawyer Alleged to Have Conspired Against Employee
A court case involving a plaintiff alleging discrimination by a union and its lawyer during grievance proceedings. The court determined that the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims and that the plaintiff's action was an abuse of process due to re-litigation of issues already decided.
Sosnowski v. MacEwen Petroleum Inc.
2019 ONSC 1860 (CanLII) · 2019-04-11Wrongful Dismissal: Limitation Periods and Discoverability
A motion for summary judgment was brought to dismiss a wrongful dismissal claim as statute-barred. The court ruled that the limitation period began on the date of termination, as the claim was discoverable at that time, and found no exceptional circumstances to extend the period.
Ryan v Peel District School Board
2017 ONSC 2331 (CanLII) · 2017-04-18Employment Contract Dispute: Pension Contributions and Limitation Periods
A court case involving a dispute over unpaid pension contributions under an employment contract. The plaintiff alleged non-payment for periods between 1992 and 2011, while the defendant argued the claim was statute-barred. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was not barred by the two-year limitation period and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Bailey v Milo-Food & Agricultural Infrastructure & Services Inc.
2017 ONSC 1789 (CanLII) · 2017-04-10Wrongful Dismissal: Limitation Periods and Age Discrimination
A wrongful dismissal case where the court ruled on the limitation periods for claims, addressing the plaintiff's working notice, intentional infliction of mental distress, and age discrimination. The court found that the limitation period for wrongful dismissal and severance pay claims began on the notice date, not the last day of work, and that the plaintiff's age discrimination claims were not statute-barred as the discriminatory conduct continued during the notice period.
Williams v Vogel of Canada
2016 ONSC 342 (CanLII) · 2016-01-2632-Year Employee Wrongfully Dismissed: 23 Months' Notice Awarded
A wrongful dismissal case where an employee with 32 years of service was terminated without cause. The court determined the employee was wrongfully dismissed and awarded 23 months' notice. The case also addressed the admissibility of discovery evidence, discrimination based on disability and age, and the non-award of aggravated or punitive damages. The court also considered limitation periods for claims.
Brown v. BCE
2015 ONSC 873 (CanLII) · 2015-02-06Wrongful Dismissal: Claim Struck for Lack of Cause of Action
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged termination without cause and sought damages, reinstatement, and other remedies. The defendant moved to strike the claim for lack of a reasonable cause of action, frivolousness, and limitation period expiry. The court found no reasonable cause of action and that the claim was statute-barred.
Barbu v. MMM Group Limited
2014 ONSC 6727 (CanLII) · 2014-12-02Wrongful Dismissal: Summary Judgment on Limitation Period
A summary judgment was granted in a wrongful dismissal case involving a limitation period dispute under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The court ruled on the application of Rule 20.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Benson v. Bird Mechanical Ltd.
2013 ONSC 5375 (CanLII) · 2013-08-20Employment Contract Dispute: Bonus Determination and Summary Judgment
A case involving the interpretation of bonus provisions in an employment contract, the application of the Limitations Act, 2002, and the test for fraudulent concealment. The court is also considering a motion for partial summary judgment on the issues.
Daniel John Burgener v. Corporation of Haldimand County
2012 ONSC 5230 (CanLII) · 2012-10-19Employment Benefits: Accumulated Sick Leave Credits and Severance Agreements
A case involving the entitlement of a former municipality employee to accumulated sick leave credits under the successor municipality's policy, the interpretation of severance agreements, and the application of limitation periods to employment claims.
Bambury v. Royal Bank of Canada
2011 ONSC 2840 (CanLII) · 2011-05-10Constructive Dismissal: Resignation and Limitation Period
A constructive dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged that the employer’s refusal to accommodate a relocation request led to the resignation of the employee. The court ruled that the limitation period for the claim began on the date of the resignation letter, dismissing the claim as untimely.
Ng v. Bank of Montreal
2010 ONSC 5692 (CanLII) · 2010-12-23Wrongful Dismissal: Summary Judgment on Statute-Barred Claims
A summary judgment was granted in a wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged termination by the defendant Bank of Montreal. The court determined that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred and did not constitute an abuse of process.
Webster v. Almore Trading
2010 ONSC 3854 (CanLII) · 2010-07-30Wrongful Dismissal: Discoverability and Summary Judgment Denial
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff was dismissed for alleged theft and commenced an action after two years. The court denied summary judgment as there were factual disputes and credibility assessments required for trial. The case also involves elements of malicious prosecution and evidence issues.
Coote v. Ontario Human Rights Commision
2009 CanLII 55130 (ON SC) · 2009-10-15Wrongful Dismissal: Limitation Period Defense Allowed to Proceed
A wrongful dismissal case where the defendant argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitation Act, 2002. The court allowed the claim to proceed with leave to amend, pending determination of the limitation period defense.
Veri v. Mill Creek Motor Freight LP
2009 CanLII 35723 (ON SC) · 2009-07-02Workplace Sexual Harassment Claim Dismissed as Precluded by Human Rights Code
A case involving claims of sexual harassment and battery by an employee against her employer. The plaintiff's claims for sexual harassment were dismissed as precluded by the Canada Human Rights Code, and her battery claim was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 1990.
Matiowski v. Lake of the Woods Business Incentive Corporation
2008 CanLII 54320 (ON SC) · 2008-10-10Overtime Compensation Dispute: Equitable Estoppel and Statutory Limitations
A merits decision involving a dispute over unpaid overtime compensation under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The plaintiff claimed monetary compensation for 3,300 hours of overtime, while the defendant argued the plaintiff agreed to time off in lieu and was estopped from seeking payment. The court partially allowed the claim with nominal damages awarded, and addressed issues of equitable estoppel, limitation periods, and the enforceability of an overtime policy in the employment contract.
Dixon v. Hanning House Limited
2007 CanLII 54954 (ON SC) · 2007-11-30Wrongful Dismissal: Limitation Period Dispute Over Termination Date
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged termination occurred in August 2005, but the defendant argued notice was provided in June 2005, rendering the claim statute-barred. The court examined the commencement date of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, and whether the notice of termination needed to be in writing, applying principles from Jones v. Friedman and Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc.
Kirkland v. Lohmann Tierzucht Canada Ltd.
2007 CanLII 19422 (ON SC) · 2007-05-28Wrongful Dismissal: Limitation Period Begins with Notice of Termination
A wrongful dismissal case where the plaintiff alleged termination after receiving oral notice in December 2003 and written notice in March 2004. The defendant argued the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied, while the plaintiff contended the six-year period from the previous legislation should apply. The court addressed whether the limitation period begins with oral or written notice of termination.