Executive summary: key legal and evidentiary issues

• The plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim was filed on November 25, 2024, more than three years after the cause of action arose, exceeding the two-year basic limitation period under British Columbia's Limitation Act.

• Mr. Wu argued the limitation period should be postponed because he was a "person under a disability" due to health challenges, language barriers, and financial difficulties in obtaining legal representation.

• No medical opinion evidence was adduced by either party to establish that Mr. Wu was incapable of or substantially impeded in managing his affairs during the relevant period.

• Evidence showed Mr. Wu retained a lawyer, negotiated a settlement, signed a release, pursued a WorkSafeBC claim, sought employment, and consented to cataract surgeries — all during the period he claimed disability.

• The Court found that language difficulties and dissatisfaction with legal advice do not constitute a "disability" that suspends the running of limitation periods under the Limitation Act.

• Even at its highest, accepting a disability until August 8, 2021, Mr. Wu's claim still needed to be filed by August 8, 2023, and his November 2024 filing remained out of time.

Background and employment history

Pei Ming Philip Wu was employed as a senior machinist beginning in 2005 by RAS Industries, which was later acquired by the defendant, Precision Pulley & Idler Inc. ("PPI"), in 2015. Mr. Wu's employment continued under PPI until February 11, 2021, when he was terminated. Following his termination, the parties entered into settlement negotiations, and Mr. Wu, represented by a lawyer, signed a release on August 25, 2021. Over three years later, on November 25, 2024, Mr. Wu filed a notice of civil claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking in effect to set aside the settlement agreement. He claimed compensation for wrongful dismissal, reimbursement for his medical expenses and lost wages due to his job-related injury, and a declaration of unjust termination.

The defendant's application for summary dismissal

PPI brought an application pursuant to Rule 9-6 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules seeking summary judgment and dismissal of the action. The defendant's position was straightforward: the claim was statute-barred. Under section 6(1) of British Columbia's Limitation Act, S.B.C. 2012, c. 13, a court proceeding must be commenced within two years of the day the claim is discovered. Mr. Wu was terminated on February 11, 2021, and limitation periods at that time were suspended due to COVID-19. The suspension ended on March 25, 2021. The defendant argued the limitation period began to run on March 26, 2021, requiring Mr. Wu to file his action by no later than March 26, 2023. His November 2024 filing was well beyond that deadline.

Mr. Wu's arguments for postponement of the limitation period

Mr. Wu, appearing in person as a self-represented litigant, argued the limitation period should be postponed because he was a "person under a disability" as defined in the Limitation Act. He cited several overlapping hardships: severe cataracts that left him "essentially functionally blind" and on a long waitlist for surgery; a job-related foot injury accepted by WorkSafeBC that required emergency hospital treatment due to a bacterial infection and left him unable to walk, stand on the ground, or drive for approximately five months; a significant language barrier, as English is not his first language; financial inability to retain a lawyer on an hourly fee basis; and dissatisfaction with his original lawyer, who he said had told him this was his first employment case and often expressed a desire to quit, and who advised him the settlement was final and that he would lose if he sued. Mr. Wu stated that in 2024, he independently consulted another person who helped him understand his situation better, and he then realized he might have legal grounds to challenge the settlement and filed his claim promptly after that discovery.

The court's analysis of disability under the Limitation Act

Justice Chan applied section 19 of the Limitation Act, which provides a modified discovery rule for persons under a disability. The Court also referenced the Wirtanen v. British Columbia factors, a non-exhaustive list of considerations for determining whether a plaintiff is substantially impeded in managing their affairs. These factors include whether the plaintiff is cognizant of the facts giving rise to the cause of action, understands the nature and purpose of proceedings, can comprehend the personal import of the proceedings, and is able to comprehend legal advice and instruct counsel. The onus of proving disability rested on Mr. Wu, as established in Olenga v. Royal Columbian Hospital.

Insufficiency of evidence to establish disability

The Court found the evidence did not support Mr. Wu's disability claim. Justice Chan noted that neither party had adduced any medical opinion on whether Mr. Wu was incapable of or substantially impeded in managing his affairs. While Mr. Wu submitted WorkSafeBC correspondence confirming temporary wage loss benefits for his foot injury from March 25, 2021, to August 8, 2021, WorkSafeBC itself concluded there was no medical evidence to support ongoing temporary disability after August 8, 2021. Regarding his cataracts, correspondence from Dr. Matthew Bujak's office showed that Mr. Wu had surgery for cataracts on September 16, 2022, and December 1, 2022, and that on June 6, 2022, Dr. Bujak signed a consent form indicating he had discussed the proposed health care and related risks with the patient and confirmed their understanding. Critically, the evidence showed Mr. Wu was actively negotiating his wage loss claim with WorkSafeBC from June 2021 onwards, speaking to board officers. He was looking for work after termination until March 2021, and he worked two days in August 2021 for another employer. The Court also noted that in June 2022, he was able to provide consent to cataract surgery and did so again prior to his December 2022 cataract surgery. The Court further rejected Mr. Wu's reliance on a case plan order made after a case planning conference held on September 8, 2025, noting it was a procedural tool to indicate sequencing of applications and did not decide that Mr. Wu's application must proceed to hearing on the long chambers list.

Ruling and outcome

Justice Chan concluded that only Mr. Wu's medical challenges may relate to the issue of disability, and that language difficulties and dissatisfaction with legal advice do not amount to a disability that impacts the running of limitation periods. The Court held that the fact Mr. Wu retained a lawyer and negotiated a settlement showed he was aware of his claim in 2021, and that his health challenges related to mobility and vision, not an inability to understand his situation. Even putting Mr. Wu's case at its highest — accepting a disability period ending August 8, 2021 — his filing deadline would have been August 8, 2023, and his November 2024 claim was still out of time. Finding no disputed facts on the issue of postponement and no genuine issue for trial, the Court dismissed Mr. Wu's claim pursuant to Rule 9-6. The defendant, Precision Pulley & Idler Inc., was the successful party and was entitled to its costs of the application at the ordinary scale. No specific monetary amount was determined, as the action was dismissed on a limitations basis before the merits were adjudicated.