Bill 27 amends section 14.1 of New Brunswick's Limitation of Actions Act to eliminate any limitation period for civil claims of trespass to the person, assault or battery when the act is sexual in nature or the claimant was in an intimate personal relationship with — or financially, emotionally or physically dependent on — the defendant. The change is written to operate regardless of whether prior limitation periods have already expired.
The amendment is retroactive and revives proceedings that were previously dismissed solely because a limitation period had expired, while carving out settled claims and final judicial dismissals. The practical consequences include potential reopening of long‑dormant civil claims, new exposure for defendants and insurers, and a likely increase in litigation and evidentiary challenges for old events.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill removes the statute‑of‑limitations for trespass to the person, assault and battery where the conduct is sexual or the claimant was in an intimate or dependent relationship with the defendant. It also makes the change retroactive and expressly revives some previously dismissed claims.
Who It Affects
Survivors of sexual and intimate‑partner violence, civil litigants whose claims were time‑barred, defendants (individuals and institutions), and insurers that cover assault or related liabilities. Courts and counsel will also face procedural and evidentiary implications from revived or newly viable claims.
Why It Matters
This is a substantive change to civil‑repose law: it shifts the balance toward survivor access to remedies and away from finality of past disputes. The retroactive revival of dismissed proceedings raises administrative and fairness questions for courts, defendants and insurers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill replaces the current text of section 14.1 with a rule that, for three torts—trespass to the person, assault and battery—there is no limitation period if the tort involved sexual conduct or if the claimant was in an "intimate personal relationship" (as defined in the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act) with the defendant or was financially, emotionally or physically dependent on them. That removes the ordinary clock that would otherwise bar civil suits after a fixed number of years.
Two features change how the standard limitation regime operates. First, the removal of the limitation period applies to acts that took place before the bill becomes law as well as those that occur afterward; the language expressly says it applies "regardless of the expiry of any previously applicable limitation period." Second, the bill revives the procedural right to sue for claimants whose civil proceedings had been dismissed solely because an earlier limitation period had expired, allowing those claims to be filed again.The bill expressly preserves the finality of some dispositions: claims that were settled and for which the settlement is legally binding remain excluded, and claims already dismissed by a court where no further appeal is possible are excluded from the revival rule (subject to the revival carve‑out noted above).
It also clarifies that class action settlements that legally bind individual claims count as settled for this purpose.Practically, the amendment creates new obligations for claimants, defence counsel and courts. Claimants seeking to revive dismissed proceedings will need to locate records and demonstrate the claim fits the statutory conditions; defendants and insurers will have to reassess exposure and potentially reopen files thought closed.
Courts will confront diagnostic questions about whether prior dismissals were "solely" for expiry, whether settlements are legally binding in a way that prevents revival, and how to manage older evidence and witness availability in revived suits.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill eliminates any limitation period for civil claims of trespass to the person, assault and battery when the act is sexual in nature or the claimant was in an intimate personal relationship with or dependent on the defendant.
The repeal is retroactive: it applies to incidents that occurred before the law comes into force and operates "regardless of the expiry of any previously applicable limitation period.", The statute revives claims that had been dismissed before commencement solely because a prior limitation period had expired, allowing re‑filing in many cases.
The revival and removal of limitation periods do not apply to claims that were settled in a legally binding way (including settled class actions) or to claims finally dismissed with no further appeal possible, subject to the revival exception.
The amendment implements these changes by renumbering the prior text to subsection 14.1(1) and adding subsections (2)–(4) to govern retroactivity, revival, and exceptions; it relies on the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act for the definition of "intimate personal relationship.".
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a no‑limitation rule for sexual and dependent/intimate‑relationship assaults
This subsection replaces the prior language with a clear substantive rule: there is no limitation period for a claim of trespass to the person, assault or battery when either the act was of a sexual nature or the claimant was in an intimate personal relationship with, or financially/emotionally/physically dependent on, the defendant. For practitioners this is the operative expansion: it transforms certain long‑recognized torts from time‑limited to open‑ended civil causes of action in defined circumstances. The cross‑reference to the Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Act means courts will use that statute's definition when assessing whether the relationship threshold is met.
Retroactivity and disregard of previously expired limitation periods
Subsection (2) instructs that the new no‑limitation rule applies to claims arising before or after the section comes into force and explicitly says it applies "regardless of the expiry of any previously applicable limitation period." That is a sweeping retroactivity provision: it neutralizes prior bars created by time limits and makes historical incidents subject to current law. Lawyers should expect immediate questions about notice, statute interpretation, and how far back claimants can go in practice given evidentiary realities.
Revival of claims dismissed solely for expiry
Subsection (3) revives the right to file for claimants whose proceedings were previously dismissed only because a limitation period had run. This is not limited to reopened actions already appealed; it authorizes refiling where the sole ground for dismissal was the expiry of time. The provision creates procedural work for courts (case‑management of refiled matters, possible stay applications) and will generate disputes over whether a prior dismissal was "solely" for expiry or involved other merits‑related reasons.
Exceptions preserving certain settlements and final dismissals
Subsection (4) protects settlement finality and the conclusiveness of certain judicial dismissals. It bars application of the no‑limitation rule to claims that have been settled and are legally binding — explicitly covering settled class actions — and to claims dismissed by a court with no further appeal possible, although subsection (3) can revive some dismissed claims when the dismissal was solely for expiry. In practice, this will spawn litigation over whether specific settlements bind individual claims and whether procedural dismissals were truly final or solely time‑based.
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 sexual assault and intimate‑partner violence — they gain indefinite civil access to sue for trespass to the person, assault and battery where the statutory conditions are met, including for historical incidents previously time‑barred.
- Claimants whose suits were dismissed only because of a limitation period — they can refile and seek remedies that were previously foreclosed by time limits.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel and victim‑advocacy organizations — they will find an expanded client base and more avenues to obtain civil remedies and compensation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual defendants and institutions (employers, schools, religious organizations) — they face renewed exposure for historical allegations, potential reputational and financial liabilities, and the difficulty of defending stale claims.
- Insurers covering assault or liability risks — carriers may see increased long‑tail claims, reserve pressure, and coverage disputes about historical acts and policy triggers.
- Courts and judicial administrators — they will have to manage revived proceedings, interpret retroactivity and settlement exceptions, and handle evidentiary and case‑management burdens for old events.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between guaranteeing survivors indefinite civil recourse for sexual and dependency‑related assaults and preserving defendants’ entitlement to repose; the bill privileges access to remedy at the expense of the certainty and practicality that limitation periods provide, creating hard questions about evidence, settlement finality and insurance coverage with no tidy legislative fix.
The bill forces a trade‑off between survivors' access to civil remedies and the legal principles of repose and finality. Retroactively removing time bars and reviving dismissed cases invites practical fairness questions: evidence, witnesses, and records commonly degrade over time, which can prejudice defendants and complicate fact finding.
The law gives claimants the right to refile in many cases but does not provide procedural mechanisms (for example, presumptive witness unavailability procedures or special timelines) to address the practical imbalance created by age of claims.
Another area of uncertainty is the boundary created by the settlement and final‑dismissal exceptions. The phrase "settlement is legally binding" will require courts to parse settlement agreements, release language and class action judgments to determine whether an individual claim was extinguished.
That will generate litigation about settlement scope and whether a claimant effectively released their claim, particularly for historical settlements concluded when survivors lacked full information about abuse. Insurers and defendants will also press coverage disputes — whether policies in force at the time of the alleged conduct (or at the time of notice) respond to revived claims — producing secondary litigation and potential solvency or allocation concerns for long‑ago policies.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.