Case information

Limitation of actions - Discoverability - Summary judgments - Actions in negligence for professional malpractice of auditors - Whether, under s. 5 of the Limitation of Actions Act, a plaintiff must have knowledge to support every element of its causes of action before having discovered its claim - What is the level of knowledge required to discover a claim under s. 5 of the Limitation of Actions Act? - Limitation of Actions Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. L-8.5, s. 5.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The Province of New Brunswick (NB) commenced an action in negligence against Grant Thornton LLP, one of its partners, and Grant Thornton International Ltd. (“Grant Thornton”) for their allegedly sub-standard audit of the financial statements of some corporations (“Atcon”) for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2009 (“F2009”). By the action, NB sought to recover damages corresponding to the $50 million it was required to pay, in March 2010, by virtue of loan guarantees provided to Atcon’s bank after Atcon’s bank successfully applied for a receivership order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 and for relief under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36. NB claims it relied on Grant Thornton’s unqualified auditor’s report in agreeing to execute the loan guarantees. After paying the $50 million, NB retained a different auditing firm to review and comment on Atcon’s F2009 financial position. In February 2011, that auditing firm provided NB with a draft report expressing the opinion that Atcon’s financial statements for F2009 had not been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and that they overstated Atcon’s assets and net earnings. NB commenced its action on June 23, 2014. Grant Thornton sought summary judgment on the basis that NB’s claim was time-barred. The motions judge allowed Grant Thornton’s motion, finding NB discovered its claim more than two years before commencing the proceedings. The Court of Appeal allowed NB’s appeal, holding that the applicable test was more exacting than the one applied by the motions judge, so that the two-year limitation period did not begin to run until a claimant discovered they have a claim, rather than discovering they have a potential claim.