to the time she received the final decision on appeal, Western was
considering her appeal.
 This belief is supported by the fact that, on November 13,
2013, Western advised that, “[u]pon receipt of all the above
requested information, we will complete our review of your
appeal and advise you of the decision”. There was no statement in
respect of time limitations.
 Lastly, unlike Nasr, Ms. Penttila never conceded that the
insurer never told her that it would not be relying on a limitations defence.
( v) No tactical delay
 Ms. Penttila made good faith efforts to avoid unnecessary
litigation believing Western was considering her appeal. There is
no suggestion that Ms. Penttila engaged in a tactical delay of the
( vi) Meets the policy objectives
 The motion judge’s decision is consistent with the policy
objective of avoiding unnecessary litigation and discouraging parties from rushing to litigation, provided there is no tactical delay.
( vii) Conclusion
 The motion judge held that Western had not satisfied its
onus to prove all of the elements of its limitation claim, including
the date when the cause of action arose, and it was legally appropriate to issue a claim such that the limitation period began to
 For the above reasons, we find the motion judge made no
palpable and overriding error in determining that Western had
not satisfied him that there was no genuine issue for trial. As held
by the motion judge, Western is free to argue the limitation issue
 On the agreement of both parties, costs are payable to the
successful party, Ms. Penttila, in the amount of $10,000.