In Plante v Darling 2023 ABKB 335, a summary trial was held with respect to a tragic accident that occurred on October 1, 2015. Mr. Plante, the Plaintiff did not issue a Statement of Claim in respect of the motor vehicle accident against the Defendants until October 31, 2017. The Statement of Claim plead damages for cognitive disturbances, depression and anxiety. The first issue in the summary trial was whether the Plaintiff’s injuries arose from the use or operational of the vehicle pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act. The second issue was whether Mr. Plante’s claim was statute barred by the Limitations Act.
The Defendants estate was noted in default on September 17, 2018 following which the administrator filed a defence. By way of factual background, Mr. Plante was driving a pickup truck, towing a trailer containing a jeep, at about 10:00 PM on October 1, 2015. Ms. Baptiste had been driving a van northbound on Highway 22 when, about two kilometres north of the intersection with Highway 8, her vehicle ran out of gasoline. She parked on the east (north-bound) shoulder of Highway 22 and activated her four-way hazard lights. Leaving her passenger in the vehicle, she left with the intention of obtaining assistance.
As Mr. Plante was travelling southbound on Highway 22, he saw Ms. Baptiste’s parked vehicle with its hazard lights. He thought it may have broken down or run out of fuel and slowed his speed of travel because pedestrians could be in the vicinity. After passing the vehicle, he noticed what appeared to be a person with their hand raised on his right side from the southbound shoulder. He swerved hard to his left but was unable to avoid a collision. Ms. Baptiste was killed in the collision. Her vehicle was about forty metres north of where her body was found. Toxicology reports indicated that her blood/ethanol concentration exceeded three times the legal limit.
After the Accident on October 6, 2015, Mr. Plante attended a medical clinic to obtain a work absence letter and address sleeping difficulties. He was referred for psychological treatment which, as he recalls, began with a November 3, 2015 attendance with a psychologist who diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder and related psychological symptoms. In the interval between October 6 and November 3, Mr. Plante had difficulties sleeping, anxiety issues and other disturbances.
On November 3, on a referral from his October 6 appointment, he attended a psychologist. As stated in his affidavit, he was then made aware that his primary issue was “PTSD associated with the trauma of the Accident.” He had no recollection of any psychological consultations before November 3, despite some medical file notes that may indicate the contrary.
The Administrator pleaded the Limitations Act as a defence. Thus, it is “entitled to immunity from liability” if Mr. Plante, as claimant, did not a seek remedial order within two years of when he knew or ought to have known that he suffered an injury, attributable to the conduct of the Defendant, and that it warranted the bringing of a proceeding. Mr. Plante’s Statement of Claim was filed on October 31, 2017, more than two years after October 1, 2015 (date of accident).
The Court concluded that at least as of October 31, 2015, two years before the Statement of Claim was filed, Mr. Plante was not aware that he had PTSD symptoms, had no means of knowing that these were caused by the accident, and could not know that these injuries would warrant the bringing of a proceeding against Ms. Baptiste’s estate. Therefore, the Court found that the Administrator was not entitled to immunity from liability by virtue of Mr. Plante’s claim being filed out of time. The Court determined that Mr. Plante’s claim was not barred by the Limitations Act.
