B.C. appeal court upholds toss of Grand Forks flood claim

The B.C. Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that struck a proposed class action over the 2018 Grand Forks-area flooding, finding the claim was filed too late.

In Flynn v British Columbia, 2026 BCCA 414, released Oct. 21, 2026, a three-judge panel dismissed an appeal by Gregory and Deborah Flynn, who sought to represent residents and businesses damaged when the Kettle River basin flooded in May 2018. The claim named the province and six forestry companies, and alleged that timber harvesting and watershed management contributed to the losses. The full decision is posted on the B.C. courts website.

The court did not decide whether the allegations were true. The only question, Justice Iyer wrote for the panel, with Justices Donegan and Edelmann agreeing, was whether the chambers judge made a reviewable error in striking the claim as statute-barred. The panel found no such error.

The decision turns on a gap between two class actions. An earlier proposed class action, known as the Massey Action, was filed in July 2020 against the same defendants and made the same claims. No application to certify it as a class proceeding was ever filed, and it was dismissed by consent in April 2023. The Flynns, who the court said knew about that action and were members of the proposed class, say they did not learn it had been dismissed until May 2023. They filed their own class action in April 2024.

B.C.’s Limitation Act generally gives a person two years from the day a claim is discovered to sue, and the court noted that limitation periods were paused from March 26, 2020, to March 25, 2021, because of the pandemic. The Flynns pleaded that they knew of the Massey Action in July 2020, which the court said meant the two-year period ran out in July 2023, before they filed.

The Flynns argued that it would not have been appropriate for them to sue separately while they were members of a proposed class. The court disagreed. It said B.C.’s Class Proceedings Act pauses limitation periods only once a certification application is filed or a class action is certified, and that the legislature chose not to pause them from the moment a proposed class action is started, as Ontario’s law does. Accepting the Flynns’ reading, the court wrote, “would undermine the legislative intention.”

The panel acknowledged the result “causes hardship to the appellants and the class they seek to represent,” but said that is a necessary consequence of the policy choices legislatures make when they set limitation periods. It also rejected the argument that a limitation defence in a class action can be decided only after the common issues are heard, saying the judge was entitled to decide it at the start because the expiry was plain on the face of the pleading.

The defendants named in the claim were the Province of British Columbia, Interfor Corporation Ltd., Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd., Tolko Industries Ltd., Nk’Mip Forestry Corporation Ltd., Nk’Mip Forestry LLP and Osoyoos Indian Band Development Corporation Ltd. The decision records no findings against any of them. When the Massey Action was filed in 2020, Interfor said it had acted in accordance with its permits, licences and regulations and intended to defend the claim, according to reporting at the time.

The ruling shows B.C. residents who are members of a proposed class action that is not certified cannot count on the limitation clock being paused. Under the court’s reading, the pause begins only when someone applies to certify the case, so a person who wants to protect a claim may need to file their own. The Flynns can ask the Supreme Court of Canada for permission to appeal, and the court’s reasons do not say whether they will.

Related coverage: Top court clarifies negligence tests in Ontario birth case, and Crews in water-logged Metro Vancouver prepare for next drenching.

If you find reporting like this useful, consider supporting Canada News Media, an independent Canadian newsroom with no corporate parent.