Summary#
Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Limitation of Actions Act, would amend New Brunswick’s Limitation of Actions Act. It would remove the limitation period (deadline for starting a claim) for certain claims for damages involving trespass to the person, assault or battery. The bill states no separate goal. The supplied text identifies it as a first-reading bill, so it is not law.
- The change would apply if the act complained of was sexual in nature, or if the claimant was then in an intimate personal relationship with the defendant, or was financially, emotionally or physically dependent on the defendant.
- It would apply to acts before or after the change takes effect, even if the old limitation period had already expired.
- It would revive the right to file a claim dismissed solely because the limitation period had expired.
- It would not reopen claims covered by a legally binding settlement or a final court dismissal, except that a dismissal solely for an expired limitation period could be revived.
What it means for you#
- People bringing claims: If a claim meets one of the bill’s conditions, there would be no limitation-period deadline to file it. A claim dismissed solely because its deadline expired could be filed again.
- Defendants: A claim could be brought over conduct from before the change, even if the former deadline passed. A binding settlement would remain protected; a final court dismissal would also remain protected, except for the specific revival rule.
- People involved in a claim: Removing a filing deadline would not itself establish that the alleged conduct happened or guarantee damages.
- Current law: The bill changes an existing Act, but the parent Act was not supplied, so I could not verify the full current rules or precisely compare them with the proposed change.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill sets no fees or fines and does not appropriate money.
- Any added costs for courts, parties or legal services are not estimated in the supplied material.
What is unclear#
- The bill refers to “intimate personal relationship” as defined in the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act. That Act was not supplied, so its definition could not be checked.
- The bill text does not state when the change would start.
- It does not set special filing, notice or decision rules for revived claims.
- The supplied materials do not show how the change would interact with other current rules that may apply to these claims.
- The effect on court workload and public costs is not stated.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that a deadline should not prevent someone from bringing a claim where the alleged act was sexual in nature or the claimant was dependent on, or in an intimate relationship with, the defendant.
- Applying the change to past claims could give people whose claims were previously time-barred a chance to bring them.
- The bill preserves legally binding settlements and generally protects final court dismissals, while making a narrow exception for dismissals based solely on an expired limitation period.
Case against#
- One concern is that claims about old events may be harder to defend if evidence or witnesses are no longer available.
- The change would apply even where a limitation period had already expired, and could revive some previously dismissed claims.
- The bill does not estimate the cost or explain how courts would handle any increase in claims.
- The scope of one key condition depends on a definition in another Act, which is not included in the supplied material.