In O’Neill Estate v. Cahill, 2026 ONSC 1176 (“O’Neill Estate”), the Superior Court reconfirmed how limitation periods apply to equitable claims against the estate of a former common-law spouse.

Facts

Kathleen (the “Deceased”) and Patrick (“Patrick”) lived together in a house (the “Property”) owned by the Deceased for ten years before her death in May of 2023. Following the Deceased’s death, Patrick continued to live in the Property and did not pay rent. Pursuant to the Deceased’s Last Will and Testament, Patrick was a beneficiary entitled to 10% of the residue of the Deceased’s estate (the “Estate”). [1]

The estate trustee of the Estate commenced an Application to obtain vacant possession and facilitate the sale of the Property. Instead of responding to the Application, Patrick commenced his own Application (the “2026 Application”) against the Estate asserting he was the part owner the Property based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. He alleged that the Deceased had promised him a share of the net proceeds from the Property’s sale. Relying on this promise, Patrick made various improvements to the Property at his own expense, both in terms of labour and materials.[2] Patrick asserted that he relied on this promise and on this basis, he is entitled to a share of the net proceeds of sale of the Property.[3]

The Estate filed a motion to strike the 2026 Application, arguing that it was statute-barred due to the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, which began to run from the date of the Deceased’s death in 2023.[4]

The court determined that the issue on the motion was whether it was “plain and obvious that a two-year limitation period” applied.[5]

Analysis

The court discussed three important limitation statutes and their corresponding time limits as follows:

1. Ten years under the Real Property Limitations Act, RSO 1990 (“RPLA”), for actions to recover land;
2. Two years under the Limitations Act, 2002 (“Limitations Act”), for most civil claims  (fifteen year ultimate period); and
3. A two years under the Trustee Act, RSO 1990 (the “Trustee Act”), for claims against a deceased, running from the date of death.

The court held that while remedial constructive trust claims can fall under the RPLA during a person’s lifetime, once the Deceased passes away, equitable trust claims against the estate are governed by the Trustee Act, RSO 1990, under the strict two‑year limit. The court went on to state the following:

[20] The critical question is whether the claim advanced by [Patrick] clearly falls into one of these categories.  If the claim is for breach of a promise to grant him an interest in the land, then is that a claim for an interest in land or is it a claim for a wrong done to him by the deceased?  On the face of it, one would suppose that an interest in land that had vested prior to death would be subject to the longer limitation period while a claim against the estate arising from a breach of promise by the deceased would attract the shorter limitation period.  This distinction is not so clear in practice.

The court asserted that Patrick was attempting to “plead around the jurisprudence and the statute by calling the claim something other than it clearly appears to be”.[6]  The court characterized Patrick’s pleadings as an unjust enrichment/constructive trust or breach‑of‑promise claim, which falls under the Trustee Act.[7]

On this basis, the applicable limitation period began to run from the Deceased’s death in May 2023, and the 2026 Application was time-barred.

Despite striking the 2026 Application, the court preserved Patrick’s ability to raise his asserted equities (improvements, reliance, contributions) as a defence and potential set‑off to the Estate’s outstanding claim for three years of occupation rent, which remained to be determined. The court ordered that Patrick’s 2026 Application be treated as his answer on the issue of occupation rent.[8]  The court provided the following:

[36] Rule 2.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in general legal rights should not be defeated by technicalities and directs the court to “grant all necessary amendments or other relief, on such terms as are just, to secure the just determination of the real matters in dispute”.[9]

In O’Neill Estate, the court determined that even if a separate proprietary claim is statute-barred, equities can still be used as a defence.

Concluding Remarks

O’Neill Estate confirms that equitable proprietary claims against an estate are subject to the Trustee Act’s two-year limitation period running from death, even where the underlying facts might otherwise support a constructive trust during the claimant’s lifetime.

—

[1] Ibid at para 6

[2] Ibid at para 11

[3] Ibid at para 11

[4] Ibid at para 13

[5] Ibid at para 14

[6] Ibid at para 31

[7] Ibid at para 32

[8] Ibid at para 35

[9] Ibid at para 26