v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co.,  2 S.C.R. 23,
 S.C.J. No. 37, 2016 SCC 37, at para. 50.
 The trial judge correctly found that it would be an unrealistic and commercially unreasonable result if one insured party
was paid for its business interruption losses and then did not pay
its obligations to a related insured party who could then make
another claim on the same policy, thereby maximizing the group’s
total insurance recovery.
( ii) Second action: Appeal and cross-appeal
 In the Second Action, the appellants asserted what the trial
judge found to be two distinct claims: ( i) for loss of property due to
the alleged theft or wrongful handling by the receiver, and ( ii) for
business interruption losses arising from the alleged wrongful
deprivation of the property.
 The respondent takes the position before the trial judge
and on appeal that both aspects of the claim are completely time-barred. In particular, the respondent argues in cross-appeal that
the trial judge erred in holding that the business interruption
claim was subject to a rolling limitation period such that a portion
of it could proceed to trial. In their notice of appeal, the appellants submit that the trial judge erred in dismissing their loss of
property claim and part of their business interruption claim as
time-barred. However, in their subsequent written and oral submissions, the appellants focus on responding to the cross-appeal
by arguing that the trial judge’s application of a rolling limitation
period was not erroneous.
 There is no dispute between the parties that the one-year
contractual limitation period provided for in the policy is enforce-
able. The policy reads:
ACTION: Every action or proceeding against the insurer for the recovery of
any claim under or by virtue of this contract is absolutely barred unless
commenced within one year next after the loss or damage occurs.
 The sale by the receiver of the Bakemates Group of
Companies’ businesses as a going concern closed on December 28,
2000 and the Second Action was commenced on November 16,
2002. The trial judge found [at para. 55] that the appellants
“either knew or had the means of acquiring the knowledge that
they may have a claim under the policy on the closing of the sale
to Amore Sweets”. Accordingly, she concluded that the claim for
coverage of the lost property was time-barred. I see no error in
that analysis and would not interfere with the trial judge’s order
dismissing the property portion of the Second Action.