Is Rule 19(24)(a), standing alone, standing alone a limitation issue?

The other claims are founded on the defendant’s conduct from 1992 until 2004. The statement of claim alleges that that conduct was concealed from the plaintiff. In Fuoco Estate v. Kamloops (City) 2001 BCCA 325, Low J.A. observed, at para. 15: Counsel have been unable to direct us to any cases in which Rule 19(24)(a), standing alone, has been used to resolve a limitation issue. That may be because statements of claim do not raise limitation issues, as is the case here. The statutory limitations is a defence pleading. It is an issue that does not arise until it is pleaded in defence. It has to be remembered that although the events which gave rise to this action had their genesis in 1974, and although it is pleaded that the agreement expired in 1975, it is also pleaded that there has been a continuous breach and trespass since 1975. I do not wish to state categorically that a limitation argument cannot properly arise under Rule 19(24)(a). But in the circumstances that exist here, in particular the allegation of an ongoing breach of contract, I am of the opinion that the limitation issue cannot properly be dealt with under Rule 19(24)(a).