Commencing a Claim
Author | Janet Walker/Lorne Sossin |
Profession | Osgoode Hall Law School, York University/Faculty of Law, University of Toronto |
Pages | 52-92 |
52
CHAPTER 3
COMMENCING A CLAIM
A. INTRODUCTION
When the decision is made to seek a resolution to a dispute by com-
mencing a claim in the courts, a number of other decisions must also be
made. This chapter addresses some of the key considerations arising at
the time of commencing a claim, including whether there is a right to
seek relief from the courts for the harm suffered, whether the plaintiff
or applicant is the person who is permitted to seek the relief requested,
whether the time allotted for commencing the claim has passed, how
the defendant or respondent must be given the notice of proceeding,
and how and when the defendant must respond.
B. A RIGHT OF ACTION
To commence a claim, the claimant must have a legally recognized en-
titlement to do so. This is sometimes described as having a right of act ion.
The idea of needing to have a right of action can be traced to the origins
of the common law. At that time, a civil claim was made through a plea to
the King in Court to order another of the King’s subjects to provide relief
for the harm caused. As the legal system developed, the King delegated
to judges the power to grant relief. The judges travelled throughout the
country to grant prescribed forms of relief based on strict instructions:
“If someone comes to you with x complaint, you may order y form of re-
Commencing a Cl aim53
lief.” The judges’ mandate was not to consider any and all complaints and
fas hion appr opriate remedi es. It wa s much mor e rest ricted and formu laic
than that. The judge’s task was simply to determine whether the com-
plaint met the specifications of the writ. If it did, the judge was mandated
to order the prescribed relief. Over time, the writs and forms of action
increased in number and became more detailed. They grew so complex
that lawyers became indispensable to the system, but the fundamental
approach remained the same. The entire civil justice system at that time
might have been described as purely procedural. Justice was not all-em-
bracing. Relief was available only where the claim was cogni zable at law.
It w as not the c ase t hat, wher e ther e some one h ad su ffere d a wr ong, t here
was a right to claim relief. Rather, where there was no right to relief, by
inference, no wrong had occurred.1
Much has changed since those times. It sounds odd today to sug-
gest that a person who feels wronged might not be entitled to seek relief
from a court. However, it remains the case that not all forms of frustra-
tion and difficulty entitle those who suffer them to seek compensation
in the courts. Not all sources of harm are recognized as wrongful in law
and not all harms give rise to a compensable loss. For example, some-
one may dislike red cars but it would be surprising to learn that there
was a legally recognized right to compensation if a neighbour kept one
parked in the driveway across the street. Some interests, such as the
interest in being protected from the sight of red cars, are not legally
recognized and, therefore, do not give rise to a cause of action.
Similarly, someone may not like the particular fragrance used by a
co-worker, but if the use of fragrances has no known harmful health
effects, the preference for a fragrance-free workplace may not be a right
protected by law. However, this example is different from the previ-
ous one because, with the growing awareness that fragrances can have
harmful health effects on some people, and the entitlement to be pro-
tected from health hazards in the workplace, a right of action to seek
recovery for harm caused by a co-workers’ use of a fragrance may come
to be recognized as a legal entitlement.
In a further example, someone might discover with some irritation
that a routine banking transaction involved an unauthorized charge
but the amount involved was negligible. As a result, even if the entitle-
ment to recovery was, in principle, beyond doubt, as a practical matter,
it would not be feasible to seek relief through litigation because the cost
of doing so would exceed the amount likely to be obtained. At one time,
1 See H. Patrick Glen n, Legal Traditions of the World, 3d ed. (Oxford: Ox ford Uni-
versity Pre ss, 2007) at 225–31.
CIVIL LITIGATION54
the unavailability of recovery might have been regarded not just as a
practical matter but as a legal one as well. The principle was sometimes
described by the Latin phrase: de minimus not curat lex or “the harm is
too small to warrant a cure.”(In this phrase, one might hear the echo
of the old common law notion that where there was no relief there had
been no wrong.) In these circumstances, it would be said that the harm
was de minimus.
The situation is less clear these days. While it remains true that
there are some harms that are too small to warrant a cure, in cases
where many people have been affected by the same harm, it may be
possible to aggregate the claims in a class proceeding. This is discussed
in Chapter 6. It will probably always be the case that some harms are
too small and affect too few people to warrant an individual cure, but in
cases where the collective impact on the public of some avoidable harm
is sufficient to make the claim economically feasible in the aggregate, it
will likely become the subject of a class proceeding.
Where defendants are faced with claims for harms that are not rec-
ognized as giving rise to a legal entitlement to relief, they may bring a
motion to strike the pleading for failure to disclose a reasonable cause
of action. However, the standards for doing so caution courts not to
strike a pleading because the claim is a novel one. The potential for
pleadings to be struck is discussed further in Chapter 9.
The nature of legal entitlements and causes of action are considered
in the various areas of substantive law, but a rightof action, or the en-
titlement to seek compensation for a legally recognized harm, is defined
and circumscribed further in ways that relate directly to the process of
civil litigation. The next two sections in this chapter examine two con-
straints on a right of action that need to be considered in commencing
a claim: the standing of a claimant to seek relief, and the time limits
within which a claim may be commenced. This chapter also considers
the way in which the defendant or respondent must be served with the
notice of proceeding, and the time allowed for serving the notice and
responding to it.
C. STANDING
In addition to having suffered a wrong that the law recognizes as com-
pensable, the entitlement to pursue a right of action depends upon the
standing of a claimant to seek relief. What entitles one person and not
another to commence a claim for relief from a particular wrong? The
obvious answer is that the person with standing to bring the claims is
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
