This bill amends Manitoba’s Limitations Act in direct response to a 2026 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on a new tort recognizing intimate partner violence. It makes a targeted statutory change designed to alter the availability of civil claims arising from intimate partner violence.
For professionals: the amendment will change who can sue, when they can sue, and how insurers and courts handle older allegations. The change is narrowly drafted but raises immediate questions about evidence, insurance coverage, retroactivity and court workload.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new clause into section 18(1) of the Limitations Act that treats claims for the tort of intimate partner violence differently from ordinary time-barred claims, and it updates cross‑references in subsections 18(2)–(4).
Who It Affects
Survivors seeking civil remedies, alleged perpetrators (often former partners), defence and plaintiff lawyers, civil insurers, and trial courts will see the most direct operational impact. Advocacy groups and legal aid providers will also be affected as caseloads shift.
Why It Matters
By changing limitation rules for one category of tort, the province removes a procedural barrier that previously prevented some stale claims, potentially increasing exposure for defendants and insurers while raising evidentiary and fairness issues that courts will have to manage.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill modifies the Limitations Act to put claims for the tort of intimate partner violence outside the ordinary limitation framework. It does that by adding a new item to the list of exceptions in section 18(1), so that courts no longer treat that specific category as subject to the province’s usual time limit.
The Legislative text also updates cross‑references so the new item is included where other subsections enumerate exceptions.
The statute doesn’t define "intimate partner violence" itself; instead it implements the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2026 recognition of a distinct tort. That means courts and lawyers will rely on the Supreme Court’s description and any subsequent jurisprudence to determine what conduct fits the tort, who counts as an intimate partner, and what elements a plaintiff must prove.The bill comes into force on royal assent, and it reaches back.
It extends subsections 18(2) to (4) of the Act to the new clause, and section 18(2) applies to acts that occurred before or after it came into force, regardless of the expiry of any previous limitation period. Claims that an old limitation period once barred can therefore be brought, subject to the two-year limit in The Trustee Act on actions against a personal representative (section 18(4)).
Plaintiffs’ counsel will likely file older claims, defendants will press procedural and evidentiary defences, and insurers will need to re-evaluate coverage positions for historical allegations.Operationally courts should expect an uptick in filings paired with disputes over scope, proof and admissibility of old evidence. Support services, legal aid and case-management practices will be relevant to how effectively the justice system processes any surge in claims tied to intimate partner violence.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds clause 18(1)(b.1) to the Limitations Act to address claims tied to the tort of intimate partner violence.
It amends subsections 18(2), (3) and (4) to include the new clause in the Act’s enumerated exceptions and cross‑references.
The Act takes effect on the day it receives royal assent — there is no delayed proclamation date in the text.
The bill does not contain a statutory definition of "intimate partner violence" and therefore relies on the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2026 decision and subsequent case law to supply the contours of the tort.
The bill extends subsections 18(2) to (4) to the new clause, so it reaches back: section 18(2) applies to acts before or after it comes into force, regardless of the expiry of any previous limitation period.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Amendment of the Limitations Act
This section is the operative amendment point: it signals that the Limitations Act is to be read with the changes that follow. It is a conventional stylistic provision but confirms the bill’s narrow scope — it does not rewrite the Act wholesale, only inserts a targeted change.
Creates the exception for the IPV tort
This is the substantive change. The bill inserts a new numbered clause into section 18(1) so that a claim "relating to the tort of intimate partner violence" is listed alongside other claims that are not subject to a limitation period. Practically, that means courts must treat that category differently when parties raise limitation defences. Because the bill does not further qualify the clause, its practical reach will turn on judicial interpretation of the tort’s elements and the phrase "relating to." Lawyers will litigate over whether derivative claims or related causes of action fall inside the exception.
Updates to ensure the new exception is recognized elsewhere in the Act
By changing the language of subsections 18(2)–(4) to add the new clause to existing cross-references, the bill ensures the exception is integrated into the Act’s existing framework rather than standing alone. That makes the new clause operative in the contexts where those subsections apply (for example, in provisions that list claims unaffected by limitation rules). The change is technical but important: failure to update cross‑references would have left ambiguity over whether the new item was actionable in downstream provisions.
Immediate commencement on royal assent
The bill declares that it comes into force on royal assent. It does not need transitional language: by extending subsections 18(2) to (4) to the new clause, the bill makes it apply to past conduct and regardless of any expired limitation period, as those subsections already do for assault claims.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Survivors of intimate partner violence — The statutory change removes a procedural time-barrier that previously blocked some civil claims, increasing access to monetary remedies and civil accountability for older harms.
- Advocacy and support organizations — Groups that assist survivors will gain a stronger legal tool to pursue compensation and recognition, which can assist in advocacy and client representation strategies.
- Plaintiff lawyers specializing in personal injury and family violence matters — They gain a discrete new avenue to bring legacy claims that were previously time‑barred, expanding potential caseloads and legal strategies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Alleged perpetrators/former partners — Individuals facing historical allegations may find themselves exposed to civil litigation long after relationships ended, complicating defence and reputation management.
- Civil insurers and indemnifiers — Carriers must reassess coverage for historical claims, particularly where policies contain intentional-act exclusions; exposures could rise and lead to disputes over coverage for older conduct.
- Courts and legal aid systems — An influx of legacy claims and related procedural disputes (scope, admissibility, retroactivity) will demand judicial time and public resources, increasing pressure on case management and access-to-justice supports.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is access to justice versus legal certainty: the bill expands survivors’ ability to bring civil claims for intimate partner violence — a remedial goal — but it does so without clarifying scope or transitional rules, thereby reopening old disputes and creating significant fairness and evidentiary problems for defendants and insurers that courts and policymakers will have to untangle.
The bill’s brevity is its strongest practical limitation: it creates a significant legal effect via a single added clause but leaves many consequential questions unresolved. Most immediately, the absence of a statutory definition of "intimate partner violence" means courts will import the Supreme Court of Canada’s articulation and then refine the tort’s contours case by case.
That judicial development is sensible in principle, but it creates a period of uncertainty as parties test boundaries: who qualifies as an "intimate partner," which acts meet the tort standard, and whether related claims (conspiracy, negligent supervision, economic abuse) are covered.
A second implementation challenge is retroactivity. The Act is not silent on it: section 18(2), as the bill extends it, reaches back past expired limitation periods, so any challenge to it will not be based on legislative intent.
Defendants will argue that reopening extinguished claims offends expectations of finality and undermines fairness where evidence has degraded. Plaintiffs will counter that the legislative purpose is remedial and addresses long‑standing barriers faced by survivors.
The result will likely be a series of threshold appeals or certification fights that could determine the practical reach of the measure.
Finally, insurance and indemnity disputes will complicate outcomes. Many liability policies exclude intentional wrongdoing; insurers will therefore contest coverage for IPV tort claims, driving parallel coverage litigation.
That layering of coverage disputes, evidentiary hurdles and retroactivity litigation risks delaying substantive resolution and increasing costs for all parties.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.