What is the current state of the law on limitation periods?

In our view, the purpose of limitations legislation is not as one-sided as the defendants suggest. In Novak v. Bond, 1999 CanLII 685 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808, 172 D.L.R. (4th) 385, Madam Justice McLachlin, speaking for the majority, sums up the contemporary view of limitation periods at para. 67 of her reasons as follows: The result of this legislative and interpretive evolution is that most limitations statutes may now be said to possess four characteristics. They are intended to: (1) define a time at which potential defendants may be free of ancient obligations, (2) prevent the bringing of claims where the evidence may have been lost to the passage of time, (3) provide an incentive for plaintiffs to bring suits in a timely fashion, and (4) account for the plaintiff’s own circumstances, as assessed through a subjective/objective lens, when assessing whether a claim should be barred by the passage of time. To the extent they are reflected in the particular words and structure of the statute in question, the best interpretation of a limitations statute seeks to give effect to each of these characteristics.