“It is useful to review the purpose behind limitations statutes. In Carmichael v GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2020 ONCA 447 at para. 80, the Court of Appeal said:
[80] Traditionally, limitation periods were seen as having three purposes, known as the certainty, evidentiary, and diligence rationales. The certainty rationale seeks “to promote accuracy and certainty in the adjudication of claims”; the evidentiary rationale seeks “to provide fairness to persons who might be required to defend against claims based on stale evidence”; and the diligence rationale seeks “to prompt persons who might wish to commence claims to be diligent in pursuing them in a timely fashion.”
[81] In Novak, McLachlin J. (as she then was) observed that the three traditional rationales for limitation periods generally reflect the interests of potential defendants, based on the idea that they should not have to respond to stale claims brought by persons who have not asserted their rights diligently. But as legislatures have modernized their limitations statutes, they have increasingly focussed on the need to treat plaintiffs fairly and to account for their interests as well. Today, therefore, a limitations statute “must attempt to balance the interests of both sides.” [Citations omitted.]
The Family Law Act has a specific provision which addresses the balancing of interests, tailored specifically to family law disputes. Subsection 2(8) of the Family Law Act states:
The court may, on motion, extend a time prescribed by this Act if it is satisfied that,
a) there are apparent grounds for relief;
b) relief is unavailable because of delay that has been incurred in good faith; and
c) no person will suffer substantial prejudice by reason of the delay.”
Pardy v. Kelly, 2021 ONSC 1029 (CanLII) at 8-9