Summary#
Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Limitation of Actions Act, would amend New Brunswick’s Limitation of Actions Act. The bill’s proposed change is to remove time limits for certain claims for damages; it does not state a separate goal. The supplied text is the first-reading version, so it is not law, and passage is uncertain.
- A claim for damages for trespass to the person, assault or battery would have no limitation period if the act was sexual in nature, or if the claimant was in an intimate personal relationship with or financially, emotionally or physically dependent on the defendant when it happened.
- The “intimate personal relationship” test would use the definition in the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act.
- The rule would apply to acts before or after the section starts, even if an earlier limitation period has expired.
- It would revive a claim dismissed solely because an earlier limitation period had expired.
- The rule would not apply to a legally binding settlement, including a settled class action, or to a court dismissal with no further appeal possible. The dismissal exception is subject to the rule allowing some claims to be revived.
What it means for you#
- Claimants: If your claim fits one of the listed conditions, the bill would remove the limitation period for filing it. It could also allow a claim dismissed solely because of an expired time limit to be filed again.
- Defendants: A claim could be brought over an act from before the bill starts, even if the former time limit expired. The bill does not remove the stated protections for binding settlements or final court dismissals.
- Other claims: The bill addresses only the specified claims for damages. It does not say that time limits would end for other kinds of claims.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill does not specify spending, staffing, fees, fines or compensation payments.
- Any effect on legal or court costs is not estimated in the supplied material.
What is unclear#
- The Limitation of Actions Act itself was not supplied, so the current rule being changed—and the full effect compared with current law—could not be verified.
- The bill does not state when the change would start.
- “Sexual in nature” and financial, emotional or physical “dependent” are not defined in the supplied bill text.
- The referenced definition of “intimate personal relationship” is not included in the supplied material.
- The bill does not set out how revived claims would proceed or address other legal defences.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that people in the listed circumstances may need to be able to bring a claim even after the usual filing deadline has passed.
- Applying the rule to earlier acts and expired deadlines could extend that opportunity to people whose claims are already time-barred.
- Allowing some claims dismissed only because of an expired deadline to be revived could make the change meaningful for those claimants.
Case against#
- One concern is that defendants may face claims about events from long ago, when evidence or witnesses may be harder to find. This is a possible effect of removing time limits for past acts.
- The bill does not define several key conditions in its own text, which may leave uncertainty about which claims qualify.
- The bill creates an exception for certain settlements and final court dismissals, but the supplied text does not explain how the change would interact with other existing legal rules.