What is the limitation period under s. 314(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an action brought against an urban municipality?

As a starting point, the limitation period in s. 314(1) applies from the time when the damages were sustained, not from the date of the occurrence which led to the damage. Section 314(1) states as follows: 314(1)(a) No action is to be brought against an urban municipality for the recovery of damages: (a) after the expiration of one year from the time when the damages were sustained, and no such action is to be continued unless service of the statement of claim is made within that one-year period. As pointed out per Wilson J. in Kamloops v. Nielsen, 1984 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1 (S.C.C.), at 48: It seems to me that it is now settled, at least in England, that the defendant’s negligence has to have manifested itself in the shape of physical damage to the property, e.g., cracks or subsidence, before time starts to run for limitation purposes. It is vital, therefore, that the trial judge make a finding as to when this occurred. . . . The court in the foregoing case went on to adopt the discoverability rule, but did not negate the foregoing minimum requirement. The foregoing is mentioned simply to point out that on the material filed, it is not possible to determine when the additional damage claimed manifested itself, but presumably it is after the date of the issuance of the statement of claim on October 3, 1996. Likewise, the material does not indicate when the applicants should have discovered the additional damage. If it is the date of January 8, 1998, when the applicants received the geotechnical and structural engineering report, the amended claim was brought within the one-year limitation period. The foregoing is pointed out simply to emphasize that on the facts of this case it is not certain.