Lloyd v. Baker
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
In November 2015, a passenger was injured when the car she was in was hit by another vehicle. She struck her head and suffered a second concussion; she had been recovering from a first concussion in an earlier workplace accident. She returned to work in January 2016 on reduced hours and modified duties and never resumed full-time regular work. Her records over the following years describe persistent physical and cognitive problems, and in December 2016 a treating doctor discussed with her that she might not return to her earlier baseline. She started her lawsuit in November 2021. The driver pleaded that the claim was out of time and moved for summary judgment. The motion judge refused, concluding that she did not know her injuries met the threshold for permanent serious impairment until a specialist reviewed her case in 2020.
What the Court Decided
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action. It held that the motion judge had not asked the right question. Under the Limitations Act, 2002, the two-year period for a motor-vehicle injury claim begins when the person knows or reasonably ought to know that her injuries exceed the statutory deductible and meet the serious and permanent impairment threshold. A person does not need to know the full extent of the injury, to have a formal diagnosis, or to be certain of winning. Here her symptoms were significant and persistent, she had been counselled in 2016 that full recovery might not occur, and family doctors and specialists had given opinions along the same lines as the later expert from 2016 onward. The evidence needed to start the clock was available well over two years before she sued, and a sincere hope of recovery did not postpone it. The Court did not hold that every person with continuing symptoms is out of time; the analysis depends on the full medical record and on what a diligent person in the same position would have found out.
This is a warning that the time to act may start earlier than most people expect. Anyone with a lasting injury from a collision should check their deadline rather than wait for a final diagnosis.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓You were injured in a car crash more than two years ago and are still dealing with symptoms but have not started a claim.
- ✓Your doctors have told you that recovery may be slow or incomplete, but you have been hoping you will get better.
- ✓You are waiting for a specialist report or formal diagnosis before deciding whether to bring a lawsuit.
Key Takeaways
- The deadline for most car-accident injury lawsuits is two years, and it can start before you receive a formal expert opinion.
- Optimism about recovery does not stop the clock if the medical picture and your symptoms show the injury is likely serious and lasting.
- Waiting for certainty can cost you the claim; speak to a lawyer early about your particular dates.