What is the limitation period for a continuing claim?

The appellants maintain that the trial judge mis-instructed herself with respect to the application of limitation periods to continuing claims. The submission is that a delay claim is a continuing claim and that, as such, each day the delay continues, resets the limitations clock. The argument is that the trial judge misinterpreted Roberts v. Portage La Prairie (City), 1971 CanLII 128 (SCC), [1971] SCR 481, as applying only to actions in nuisance. The appellants contend that the trial judge failed to appreciate “that none of the 2000, 2006 or 2009 amendments add any new cause of action and, as such, are not subject to any new limitation period.” (Appellants’ factum, para. 63)