barred unless commenced within one year next after the loss or
damage occurs.” The court found that the business interruption
losses [at para. 4] “continued to accrue from day to day thereafter,
and cannot therefore be said to have ‘occurred’ on the day of the
event which triggered it, namely the day of the fire”.
 Treeland has never been followed in Ontario. It was
referenced briefly by Stinson J. in DK Manufacturing Group Ltd.
v. Co-operators General Insurance Co.,  O.J. No. 3291, 2016
ONSC 3983 (S.C.J.). However, he expressly declined to decide
whether it should be followed. Stinson J. also referenced Triple
Five Corp. v. Simcoe & Erie Group,  A.J. No. 920, 102 A.R.
101 (Q.B.), where the court reached a similar conclusion to
Treeland. In Triple Five Corp., the insurance company conceded that
business interruption losses continued to accrue after the
accident. Thus, there was no analysis of the issue.
 The respondent relies on several decisions of this court
where a one-year limitation clause with the same or nearly identical wording to the limitation clause in the present case was
enforced for business interruption loss claims: International
Movie Conversions Ltd. v. ITT Hartford Canada (2002), 57 O.R.
(3d) 652,  O.J. No. 76 (C.A.); Boyce v. Co-operators Insurance
Co. (2013), 116 O.R. (3d) 56,  O.J. No. 2568, 2013 ONCA 298;
Leblanc & Royle Enterprises Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1994), 17 O.R. (3d) 704,  O.J. No. 482 (C.A.). As the
appellants point out, however, in none of those cases did the
insured assert that the business interruption claims were subject
to a rolling limitation period.
 In addition to the foregoing cases, the respondent also relies
on a decision of this court that did not deal with business interruption losses: Goorbarry v. Bank of Nova Scotia (2011), 109 O.R. (3d)
92,  O.J. No. 5770, 2011 ONCA 793. In that case, Feldman
J.A., writing for the court, rejected the submission that a claim for
long-term disability was subject to a rolling limitation period. The
policy provided that a claim had to be asserted within two years
of the “covered event”. That term was not defined, but Feldman
J.A. found that a covered event occurred twice under the policy:
first, when the insured provided initial proof of disability; and
second, when the insured was deemed to have ceased to be disabled. Because these events did not reoccur each month, a rolling
limitation period was inapplicable: Goorbarry, at para. 13.
 In so ruling, Feldman J.A. distinguished the obiter comments
of this court in Wilson’s Truck Lines Ltd. v. Pilot Insurance Co.
(1996), 31 O.R. (3d) 127,  O.J. No. 3735 (C.A.). There, the
policy required the initial payment for no-fault accident benefits to
be paid by the insurance company within 30 days of filing and