• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • EN | FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • FR Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Energy Infrastructure Mining Private Equity & Investment Funds View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events Subscribe
Arbitration Angle Artificial Intelligence Insights Business Law Talks Podcast Class Actions: Looking Forward Class Action Quick Takes
Economic Outlook New Energy Economy Series Quarterly Fintech Insights Quarterly M&A Insights Sustainability & the CIO
People
Offices
About
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
Insights
News
Events
Careers
Law Students
Alumni
Payments
Search
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 

Agreements to Reduce Limitation Periods Invalid After April 1, 2006

March 09, 2006

Written By H. Martin Kay

The Alberta Government has just proclaimed into force, as of April 1, 2006, a controversial amendment to the Province's Limitations Act ("L.A."). This amendment prohibits any agreement to reduce the statutory limitation periods applicable to a claim.

Section 7(1) of the L.A. permits express extensions of the statutory limitation periods applying to a claim, and has been in force since the Act first came into force on March 1, 1999. There has been some dispute among lawyers and government officials over whether the absence of a similar provision to permit reduction of limitation periods meant that such reduction agreements were allowed (as they were prior to the new Act), or prohibited. The Government then enacted s. 7(2), to prohibit such agreements. The section was originally proclaimed into force as of June 1, 2003 but, likely due to lobbying efforts by the legal profession and others, that proclamation was rescinded in order to allow further study. Section 7(2) will now come into force April 1, 2006. The section reads:

7(2) An agreement that purports to provide for the reduction of a limitation period provided by this Act is not valid.

The apparent impetus behind such a prohibition appears to be a concern over situations of unequal bargaining power, such as consumer insurance contracts. However, the blanket prohibition now enacted has every prospect of creating much concern and confusion over such things as time limited warranties and representations.

The operation of the prohibition is uncertain. It may not be immediately clear to contracting parties whether they have violated the prohibitions on shortening statutory limitation periods. Where a contractual limitation on bringing an action depends on the happening of a specified event, the parties would not know whether the limitation period is shorter or longer than the statutory period until the event occurs. This form of drafting may have to be abandoned.

The principal concern in respect of agreements which may shorten limitation periods and as such offend the statute, though, arises in respect of agreements which contain representation and warranty clauses. The effect of this amendment on contractual provisions that explicitly shorten limitation periods seems clear, while those agreements that indirectly shorten limitation periods (e.g. by requiring notice of a claim within a shorter period) are potentially valid.

Careful drafting may be able to create shorter notice periods without offending the legislative prohibition. However, a court could still conclude that these provisions were intended to be interpreted broadly, to prevent the abuses to which shorter, contractual limitation periods give rise by denying parties what may be viewed as a reasonable time (two years minimum) to assess and assert a claim.

When a similar prohibition against reducing limitation periods was passed in Ontario, consideration was given to having agreements governed by the laws of other jurisdictions in Canada.

Somewhat surprisingly, there is no transitional provision to guide Albertans as to whether s. 7(2) will govern existing agreements, or will only govern agreements entered into after April 1, 2006.

Backgrounder

A limitation period is the period of time within which a civil action must be commenced. A person with a civil claim (for example, damages for personal injury) will lose the right to bring the claim, and therefore to recover any damages and other relief, if he or she does not initiate legal action within the specified period of time. In Alberta, as in most provinces in Canada, limitation periods are found in legislation specific to the nature of the claim (e.g., Insurance Act), as well as in a uniform Limitations Act that covers all claims not specifically addressed in other legislation.

The Alberta Limitations Act which came into force on March 1, 1999 significantly changed the law governing limitation periods in Alberta. Subject to a grandfathering provision, and those claims which remain under other statutes, it applies to all litigation commenced in Alberta and to all claims governed by Alberta law. The Act provides a formula for calculating limitation periods that is applicable to most actions. While the formula appears straightforward, its implications may not be immediately recognized.

We trust this notice of the recent amendment to the Alberta Limitations Act is helpful. Should you require advice as to the implications of this amendment, we at Bennett Jones LLP would be pleased to assist you.

Please note that this publication presents an overview of notable legal trends and related updates. It is intended for informational purposes and not as a replacement for detailed legal advice. If you need guidance tailored to your specific circumstances, please contact one of the authors to explore how we can help you navigate your legal needs.

For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Amrita Kochhar at kochhara@bennettjones.com.

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Related Expertise

  • Commercial Litigation

Recent Posts

Speaking Engagements

Insights on Tariff Strategy and Cross-Border Trade Compliance

May 08, 2025
       

In The News

John Manley on NPR’s Morning Edition on Mark Carney’s White House Visit

May 06, 2025
       

Speaking Engagements

Brendan Sigalet on Clean Investment Tax Credits

May 05, 2025
       

Speaking Engagements

Due Diligence for Tenants at ICSC CANADIAN LAW

May 02, 2025
       

Announcements

Bennett Jones Lawyers Named Among Canada’s Top Litigators By Benchmark Canada

May 01, 2025
       

Announcements

Twenty-Six Bennett Jones Lawyers Ranked in Lexpert's Special Edition on Infrastructure

April 30, 2025
       

Announcements

Jesslyn Maurier Appointed to Ontario Chamber of Commerce’s Board of Directors

April 29, 2025
       

In The News

John Manley Speaks With BNN Bloomberg on Business Implications of a Minority Government

April 29, 2025
       

Speaking Engagements

Ontario Bar Association: Insights on Employee Ownership Trusts

April 29, 2025
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Montréal
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2025. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones