Man filed injury claim shortly after two-year anniversary of motor vehicle accident
The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court has ruled that an injured plaintiff’s limitation period extended to Mar. 3, 2020, when he filed the statement of claim, rather than expiring the day before, when the court had closed for a snowstorm.
The case was Hawco v. Cornick, 2026 NLSC 138. On Mar. 1, 2018, vehicles driven by the parties were involved in a collision in the Town of Holyrood.
Under the province’s Limitations Act, 1995, the relevant limitation period was two years from the date of the cause of action.
Mar. 1, 2020, the two-year anniversary of the accident, fell on a Sunday. On Mar. 2, 2020, the St. John’s Supreme Court remained closed for the full day due to a snowstorm.
Claim for injuries
On Mar. 3, 2020, the plaintiff issued a statement of claim for injuries he supposedly sustained in the collision, which the defendant allegedly caused.
Under r. 17A of NL’s Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, the defendant applied to dismiss the action based on its commencement after the expiry of the applicable limitation period.
The plaintiff opposed the application. He argued that he filed the statement of claim on time because the pertinent statutory provisions extended the limitation period.
Alternatively, the plaintiff asserted that the court should use its inherent jurisdiction to extend the filing deadline or to issue an order backdating the statement of claim under the nunc pro tunc doctrine.
NL Supreme Court says claim is timely filed
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador denied the defendant’s application and ordered him to pay the plaintiff column 3 costs.
The court held that the plaintiff timely issued his statement of claim because the closure of the St. John’s court on Mar. 2, 2020, extended the relevant limitation period until Mar. 3, 2020.
Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court’s interpretation
Upon interpreting ss. 22(j) and 27(1)(l) of the Interpretation Act, 1970, in the context of the Limitations Act, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court determined that the limitation extended to the next day when the St. John’s court was open and capable of accepting the filing.
“Unlike holidays, which are known in advance, a weather-related court closure is unforeseen and entirely beyond the litigant's control,” wrote Justice Philip Osborne for the court.
According to the court, depriving a litigant of part of the limitation period due to the court’s unexpected closure for the entire final day for filing would go against the purpose of the Limitations Act and the Interpretation Act and would undermine the certainty that the legislation intended to afford.
“A litigant would be unable to know with confidence whether the full statutory period remained available where the court happened to be closed on the final day,” Osborne said.
The court concluded that its interpretation aligned with the rationale in P. F. Collier & Son Ltd. v. Canada (Deputy M.N.R., Customs and Excise), 1986 CanLII 6869 (FCTAD).
Other arguments
Given the resolution of the issue through statutory interpretation, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court found it unnecessary to address the plaintiff’s arguments on inherent jurisdiction or the nunc pro tunc doctrine.
More Newfoundland and Labrador cases involving injury
According to an NL Court of Appeal ruling dated Nov. 7, 2025, a man who alleged that a priest sexually assaulted him while he was a resident at a youth detention center in the 1980s could not pursue claims against the province via a summary trial.
On Aug. 18, 2025, the appeal court allowed an intervention application alleging that a decision failed to adequately address leading appellate authorities on insurance law principles or tackle the public policy implications of voiding coverage for sexual assault claims.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury news on the main page!
