applies under the Limitations Act, 2002. See Joseph v. Paramount Canada’s Wonderland (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 401, 
O.J. No. 2339, 2008 ONCA 469. The estate is essentially saying
that because all of the facts have already been pleaded in the
action, there is no surprise and no prejudice to the defendants
(or other parties) to allow the estate to be added as a party now,
even though the limitation period has expired.
 That was what occurred in the case of Thoman v. Fleury
(1996), 28 O.R. (3d) 398,  O.J. No. 1265 (C.A.), decided
under the former Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, where
the doctrine of special circumstances was applied.
 In Thoman, the plaintiffs brought a motion to add
Thoman as a defendant in an action relating to a motor vehicle
accident. Thoman was already a plaintiff in the larger action,
claiming damages under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. F.3. She was also the owner of the car in which the accident
occurred. The court noted that the claim against Thoman was
technically statute-barred, but could be saved by applying the
doctrine of special circumstances. The court observed that her
addition made no difference to the defendant insurer, as it had
pleaded all the defences it would have pleaded had Thoman
been named as a defendant from the outset. The court relied
on a relevant special circumstance identified by the Supreme
Court in Basarsky v. Quinlan,  S.C.R. 380,  S.C.J.
No. 118 that “[a]ll of the facts [underpinning the new claim]
were pleaded in the original statement of claim”.
 While this approach may well have assisted the estate
under the former Act and the common law, as this court
explained in Canada’s Wonderland, the current Limitations Act,
2002 is intended to be comprehensive and does not allow a party
to be added after the limitation period has expired on the basis
of “special circumstances”. The doctrine of special circumstances
is a common law principle which is no longer applicable under
the new Act.
 Second, to give effect to the estate’s submission would
allow one party to assert another party’s claim, and effectively
toll the limitation period for that party indefinitely beyond the
two-year limit, regardless of that party’s discovery of its claim.
Such a result would be contrary to the scheme of the Act.
(2) The statement of defence does not plead a limitations
 Although I would not give effect to the submission by the
estate that it is entitled to relief because the statement of
defence already pleads its claim, the fact that the defendants