Law360 Canada ( November 12, 2018, 9:30 AM EST) -- Appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of a motions judge dismissing her motion to add the respondent insurer as defendant on the basis that the limitation period had expired. Cross-appeal by the insurer from the judge’s provisional finding that, if not statutorily prevented from doing so, she would have disallowed the insurer’s limitation defence and added it as a defendant. The appellant claimed she was injured in 2013 while a passenger on a Halifax transit bus due to the actions of an unidentified driver. She commenced an action against Halifax in 2015. In 2016, 18 months after expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Standard Automobile Policy, the appellant brought her motion to add the insurer of the bus as a defendant. The motion judge found that the two-year limitation period for bringing a claim against an insurer under the Standard Automobile Policy had expired. The appellant argued that she was not aware Halifax had insurance coverage permitting a claim until July 2016. She argued Halifax had a duty to advise her of the existence of its insurance coverage and the availability of a claim under Section D of the policy and that the limitation period only began to run when she was finally advised of that fact. The motion judge found Halifax had no positive duty to advise the appellant that she might have Section D coverage through the insurer of its buses and was not required to notify its liability insurer of a potential Section D claim. The motions judge also determined she was precluded by s. 12 of the Limitation of Actions Act from considering a disallowance of the insurer’s potential limitation defence. The motions judge concluded that the two-year limitation period set out in the Standard Automobile Policy did not meet the definition in s. 12(1) because it was not established by enactment....