The Lawyer’s Duty to Communicate: Professional Liability & Section 17 of the Limitation Act

Lawyers are trained to consider facts, identify possible causes of action, and provide competent legal advice to their clients. This is more than a service – it’s a professional obligation inherent in the nature of the solicitor-client relationship. Lawyers have a duty to communicate with their client about matters relevant to a retainer, and breach of this duty can have serious consequences for both the lawyer and the client.

Recently, in Lau v. Insurance Company of British Columbia,¹ the BC Supreme Court discussed this “duty to communicate” in the context of limitation periods. In Lau, the Court held that a lawyer’s knowledge of matters relevant to a retainer can be imputed to his or her client pursuant to s. 17 of the Limitation Act.² Therefore, it is crucial that lawyers understand their duty to communicate, as omissions can lead to severe consequences:

[189] … A failure of a solicitor to abide by his duty to communicate the existence of a claim to a client will not result in the postponement of the limitation period but may create a separate cause of action against that solicitor by said client.³

The Lawyer’s Duty to Communicate

The solicitor-client relationship arises from a contract of utmost good faith.⁴ Clients place significant confidence in their counsel, and lawyers must ensure they are acting with skill and competence, and in their client’s best interests. Arising from this special relationship is the lawyer’s duty to communicate with their client about matters relevant to the retainer.

At common law, a lawyer’s knowledge of material facts can be imputed to his or her client,⁵ including when determining the date a client ought to have discovered a claim for limitation purposes.⁶ The common law rule is founded upon a presumption that lawyers will communicate relevant information to their client because it is their duty to do so.⁷ This presumption is said to be so strong it cannot be rebutted.⁸ However, because the rule is premised on the lawyer’s duty to communicate relevant information, courts will only impute knowledge relevant to the lawyer’s retainer.⁹

Section 17 of the Limitation Act

The ability to impute a lawyer’s knowledge to a client also arises from the law of agency.¹⁰  Once a lawyer is retained by a client, an agency relationship is formed, which creates another legal basis for imputing a lawyer’s knowledge to his or her client. For example, the law has long since held that notice to a lawyer constitutes notice to a client.¹¹ In Lau, the court held that s. 17(2) of the Limitation Act, which governs discovery rules for principals and agents, applies to solicitors and their clients.¹²

Section 17(2) provides as follows:

17 …

(2) A claim of a principal, if the principal’s agent had a duty to communicate to the principal knowledge of the matters referred to in section 8 (a) to (d), is discovered on the earlier of the following:

(a) the day on which the claim is discovered by the principal’s agent;

(b) the day on which the claim is discovered by the principal.

Put another way, if a lawyer, in the course of his or her retainer, acquires knowledge of the matters referred to s. 8(a) to (d) of the Limitation Act, he or she has a duty to communicate that information to the client. Because of this, the lawyer’s knowledge is imputed to their client pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Limitation Act, and the limitation begins to run from the date the lawyer discovered (or ought to have discovered) the claim. It is therefore crucial that lawyers understand their professional obligations. In Lau, the Supreme Court held that if the client misses the applicable limitation date, the client may have a separate cause of action against the lawyer for solicitor’s negligence.¹³

Takeaways

Lawyers are placed in a position of significant trust by their client and have an obligation to act in their client’s best interests. The lawyer’s professional obligations include a duty to communicate any relevant and material information to their clients, including any factual basis for a claim. Breach of this duty may amount to solicitor’s negligence. For this reason, lawyers must take reasonable steps to ensure they are reporting on all matters relevant to their retainer.

If you require additional information or further assistance, please contact Menka Sull, Lindsay Morgan, or a member of our Administrative + Public Law Practice Group.

^{1 2026 BCSC 574 [Lau], currently under appeal.
2 S.B.C. 2012, c. 13.
3 Lau, at para. 189.
4 Hakemi & Ridgedale LLP v. 1011173 B.C. Ltd., 2024 BCCA 347 at paras. 25.
5 Burns v. Kelly Peters & Assoc. Ltd., 1988 CanLII 3095 (BC SC) at para. 23.
6 See for example: Jack v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 CanLII 6217 (ON SC) at para. 116; and Soper v. Southcott, 1998 CarswellOnt 2906 at para. 21, 1998 CanLII 5359 (ON CA).
7 HOOPP Realty Inc. v. Emery Jamieson LLP, 2020 ABCA 159 at para. 80 [Hoop Realty] citing Cameron v Hutchison, 1869 CarswellOnt 121 at paras 11, [1869] OJ No 257 (QL).
8 Hoop Realty, at para. 80, citing Bank of British North America v St John & Quebec R. Co, [1920] 52 DLR 557 at 561, 1920 CanLII 376 (NB Sup Ct AD) aff’d 1921 CanLII 574 (SCC).
9 Fanshawe College v. AU Optronics, 2015 ONSC 2046 at paras. 59–60; HOOP Realty, at paras. 75 and 82.
10 HOOPP Realty, at para. 75.
11 HOOPP Realty, at para. 71.
12 Lau, at para. 188.
13 Lau, at para. 189.}