Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff alleged negligence and breach of warranty after being injured by a Makita router tool.

• The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred under the 15-year ultimate limitation period.

• The router was manufactured in 2001, and the claim was filed 19 years later in 2020.

• The plaintiff argued the defendant’s liability involved ongoing duties, which should delay the limitation period.

• The court found no evidence of continuing acts or omissions to justify tolling the ultimate limitation period.

• Summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant, dismissing the claim as statute-barred.

Facts and procedural background

Mark Hennebury brought a personal injury lawsuit against Makita Canada Inc. after suffering facial injuries from a Makita RF1101 router tool on June 4, 2019. He alleged that the router malfunctioned by unexpectedly accelerating, which caused a grinding bit to shatter and injure him. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was negligent in distributing a defective product, failing to warn of risks, and breaching implied warranties of safety and merchantable quality.

The defendant denied liability and brought a motion for summary judgment. The key issue on the motion was whether the action was barred by the ultimate 15-year limitation period set out in Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002. Though the plaintiff filed his claim in 2020—well within the two-year basic limitation period from the date of injury—Makita argued that the ultimate limitation period began in 2001, the date the router was manufactured.

Manufacturing history and limitation defence

Evidence revealed that the router was manufactured in March 2001 in the United States by Makita Corporation of America and not designed or distributed directly by Makita Canada. This manufacturing date came to light during discoveries and was disclosed to plaintiff's counsel in 2023. The defendant amended its pleadings in August 2023 to raise the limitation defence. The plaintiff, in turn, argued that the action should proceed to trial to resolve credibility issues around the timing of the disclosure and whether any of the alleged breaches were ongoing.

Court’s analysis of summary judgment and limitations law

The court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. It found that no genuine issue requiring a trial existed. It also determined that the plaintiff's claims were subject to the 15-year ultimate limitation period under section 15(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, which begins when the underlying act or omission occurs—regardless of when the harm is discovered.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant had an ongoing duty to recall or warn about the product and that this extended the limitation period. The court rejected this reasoning. It held that to qualify as a “continuing cause of action,” the conduct must involve a repeated or successive pattern of wrongdoing, not simply a failure to act once. No such pattern was established, and the court found that Makita Canada had no ongoing actionable conduct following the product’s manufacture.

Conclusion and outcome

Justice Anne London-Weinstein ruled that the plaintiff’s claim was statute-barred under the ultimate limitation period. The court granted summary judgment in favour of Makita Canada Inc., dismissing the action entirely. Costs were reserved, with directions given for the parties to attempt resolution or file written submissions if needed.