FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,187 times | Saved to 350 briefcases
M (K) v M (H), [1992] 3 SCR 6


P brought claim when was she was 28 for incest that occurred between 8-16.
S.47 of limitation act postpones the limitation period if the P is under a legal disability – minor, mental defect, mentally incompetence, etc.


Is P barred from bringing claim based on time limitations?


Test – would a hypothetical reasonable person in the shoes of the P been acting sensibly in commencing an action earlier or should the person have waited until being able to appreciate that a wrong or wrongs have occasioned significant harm to her well-being.


P only discovered the link to her injuries bc of the incest when she entered therapy and the lawsuit was commenced shortly after that.
Appellants claim age of majority is when the limitation period should have started to run. BUT court says - P must have substantial awareness of the harm and its likely cause before the limitation period beings.
Presumption that certain incest victims only discover the necessary connection between their injuries and the wrong in therapy (so once in therapy clock will start to run, that is the presumption) - It is open to the D to rebut this


Tort claim, while subject to time limitations, does not accrue until the P is reasonably capable of discovering the wrongful nature of the Ds acts and the nexus between those acts and her injuries - P can get damages

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.