Huether v. The Corporation of the Township of McMurrich Monteith, et al. (2025 ONCA 140)
In Huether v. The Corporation of the Township of McMurrich Monteith, et al, the Court of Appeal addressed an important issue in municipal law: how far liability can extend for historic building-inspection conduct. The decision confirms that the Limitations Act, 2002 imposes true, enforceable time limits, and courts will not permit plaintiffs to bypass them through creative arguments about “ongoing” municipal duties.
The case involved a dwelling built in 1986–1987. A building permit was issued, inspections occurred, and an Order to Comply was noted. After multiple resales, the plaintiffs purchased the property in 2021 and discovered structural defects. They sued the Township in 2022, alleging negligent inspection in the 1980s. The Township invoked the 15-year ultimate limitation period in s. 15(2). The motion judge disagreed, finding that because the permit had never been formally “closed,” the Township owed a continuous duty to monitor, delaying the start of the limitation period indefinitely.
The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed this decision. It held that a “continuous act or omission” under s. 15(6)(a) requires repeated, ongoing misconduct, not the lingering effects of a decades-old omission. The Township ceased all involvement by 1988 and did “absolutely nothing” thereafter. Under the Act’s transitional provisions, the ultimate limitation period began January 1, 2004, and expired January 1, 2019. The plaintiffs’ 2022 action was therefore statute-barred.
The Court warned that the motion judge’s interpretation would effectively abolish the ultimate limitation period; any old permit file could be characterized as “open,” exposing municipalities to liability 40–100 years later. This result contradicts the Legislature’s intention to prevent perpetual litigation over historic latent defects.
The Court also held that the motion judge erred in recognizing a novel municipal “duty to monitor” permit files without conducting the required Anns/Cooper duty-of-care analysis. Whether such a duty could ever exist remains open, but it cannot be created without proper legal scrutiny. [1]
Why it matters:
The decision reinforces that municipalities are not indefinite insurers of construction quality. “Continuing omission” arguments will be interpreted narrowly. Buyers of older properties must conduct independent due diligence. Most importantly, the ultimate limitation period is a hard stop, ensuring fairness, finality, and certainty for municipal defendants and their insurers.