Summary#
Bill 27 would change New Brunswick’s time limits for certain lawsuits involving physical harm. It would remove the deadline for claims involving sexual acts, intimate relationships, or dependence on the person accused. The bill is intended to allow people to bring these claims even many years after the event.
The source material shows that the bill had only been introduced for first reading on March 18, 2026. It does not establish that the bill became law.
- The current law already has no limitation period (legal deadline) for certain claims involving acts of a sexual nature.
- The bill would extend this rule to claims involving assault or other direct personal harm when the claimant was in an intimate personal relationship with the defendant.
- It would also apply when the claimant was financially, emotionally, or physically dependent on the defendant at the time.
- The change would apply to acts that happened before or after the bill starts.
- It could revive claims previously dismissed only because the old time limit had expired.
- It would not reopen claims that were legally settled. It would also not reopen final court dismissals, except for claims covered by the bill’s revival rule.
What it means for you#
- People harmed by a sexual act: The bill would continue to allow a claim for damages without a time limit where the act was sexual in nature.
- People harmed by an intimate partner: A person could bring a claim without a time limit for an assault or other direct personal harm if they were in an intimate personal relationship with the defendant when the act occurred.
- People dependent on the person accused: The same rule would apply if the claimant depended on the defendant financially, emotionally, or physically.
- People with older claims: A person could potentially bring a claim even if the previous legal deadline had already expired.
- People whose cases were dismissed: A previous case could potentially be filed again if it was dismissed only because the old limitation period had expired.
- People with settled or final cases: The bill would not generally reopen a legally binding settlement or a court dismissal where no further appeal is possible.
- Defendants: A person could face a lawsuit about conduct that happened many years earlier. The bill does not set a new deadline for these claims.
Expenses#
The bill may increase legal and court-related activity, but no estimate is available.
- Public costs: No publicly available information.
- Costs for claimants: A person bringing a claim may face legal fees and other court costs. The bill does not specify these costs.
- Costs for defendants: Defendants may incur legal costs when responding to older claims.
- Government administration: Courts may need to handle claims involving events from many years ago. The bill provides no estimate of added staffing or administrative costs.
- Settlements and damages: The bill changes when a claim can be brought. It does not set the amount of damages or create a government compensation program.
Proponents' View#
No public statements from proponents were supplied.
Based on the bill’s wording, possible arguments in favour include:
- The bill could allow people to seek damages even when trauma, dependence, or the nature of the relationship made it difficult to start a lawsuit earlier.
- It could give people in abusive or dependent relationships more time to bring a claim after the relationship or dependence ends.
- Applying the change to older events could give access to the courts to people whose claims were previously blocked only by the expired time limit.
- Excluding legally binding settlements and most final court decisions could preserve some legal certainty for cases that have already ended.
Opponents' View#
No statements from opponents were supplied.
Possible concerns based on the bill’s design include:
- Defendants may have to respond to claims about events that happened many years ago, when witnesses, records, or other evidence may be difficult to find.
- Removing the time limit could make it harder for courts to assess the reliability of evidence in older cases.
- The bill does not clearly explain how courts should assess claims involving emotional or physical dependence.
- The bill could increase legal costs and court workload, but no impact estimate is provided.
- The bill’s treatment of previous court cases may raise questions about which dismissed claims can be revived and how that process would work.