The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50834
regional wrap-up ATLANTIC Time is running out . . . N ew Brunswick has reached its legal limit. Bill 28, the Limitation of Actions Act, reduces the general limitation period from six years to two years based on discoverability of the cause of action. There is also an absolute limitation period of 15 years. "The changes . . . will have a significant impact on litigants and lawyers," says Clarence Bennett, an associate with Stewart McKelvey in Fredericton. One of those impacts, he notes, is the elimination of any limitation period for claims related to trespass to the person, assault, or battery if the act complained of is of a sexual nature. It's not only time frames that change Clarence Bennett says changes to New Brunswick's limitations act will have significant impact on lawyers. or is discovered. That term is defined in the act as "a claim to rem- edy the injury, loss, or damage that occurred as a result of an act or omission." The legal limits are not etched in stone, however. Section 4 of the new legislation, which has received Royal assent but is not expected to come into force until next year, provides that if there is a conflict between Bill under the new legislation, so does the language of limitations. Under the old act, the clock started ticking when a "cause of action" arose or was discov- ered. The new act, says Bennett, starts to run based on when a claim arises 28 and any other public statute of New Brunswick, the other statute prevails. For example, says Bennett, the limita- tion periods contained in the Insurance Act for bringing legal proceedings under different kinds of insurance poli- cies are not repealed by Bill 28. However, he points out, if there is a conflict between the Limitation of Actions Act and any private statute of New Brunswick, the former prevails. "This is significant as many private statutes currently contain much shorter letters to the editor Disappointed in editorial I am writing on behalf of the Ontario Crown Attorneys' Association to express my disappointment with your recent editorial ["Disbar those bad apples," Canadian Lawyer, August 2009]. It is disconcerting to see a publication aimed at the legal profession drawing conclusions in its lead editorial before all the facts are known. Calling for the disbarment of any lawyer is a very serious issue. Crown attorneys take great pride in their work and no one works harder to see that justice is done for all Ontarians. Thomas A. Hewitt President Ontario Crown Attorneys' Association www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com NO VEMBER / DECEMBER 2009 7 limitation periods than those estab- lished under Bill 28." Signing on the dotted line also takes on new meaning under the new law. Its predecessor required a written and signed acknowledgment of a debt, judgment, or certain property-related rights to trigger a new limitation peri- od. Under the new legislation, written acknowledgments of any right, title, liability, or obligation will restart the applicable limitation period from the date of the acknowledgment. On the other hand, if a claim is not brought within the limitation period because the defendant's actions lead the claimant to reasonably believe that the claim would be resolved by agreement, claimants may bring the claim within six months of the day on which they first knew or ought reasonably to have known that the belief was unfounded. New Brunswick is not alone in amending its limitation provi- sions. Indeed, Bill 28 draws on recent reforms adopted by Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. — DONALEE MOULTON donalee@quantumcommunications.ca