In the 2016 Supreme court decision, C.S. c. E.Sc., the plaintiff brought a civil action for damages against her mother and the estate of her late father, alleging sexual abuse that took place between 1970 and 1977, when she was between six and thirteen years old. The central legal issue was whether the claim was time-barred under Quebec’s prescription rules, or whether it could proceed under the extended limitation periods introduced by Article 2926.1 of the Civil Code of Quebec (C.C.Q.).
The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s right of action had expired in 1985, three years after she reached the age of majority, and that the new provision under Article 2926.1 C.C.Q.—which came into force in 2013—could not revive a claim that was already prescribed. They maintained that the standard three-year limitation period applied, and that the action was therefore inadmissible.
The plaintiff asserted that she only became aware of the causal link between the abuse and her psychological harm following her father’s death in May 2013. She relied on Article 2926.1 C.C.Q., which provides a 30-year limitation period for claims arising from sexual assault, childhood violence, or spousal abuse, beginning from the moment the victim becomes aware of the connection between the harm and the wrongful act. The article also stipulates that, in the event of the death of the victim or the alleged perpetrator, the applicable period is reduced to three years from the date of death, provided the original period has not already expired.
Justice Nicole-M. Gibeau emphasized that, at the preliminary stage of a motion to dismiss, the court must presume the truth of the allegations in the originating application. The plaintiff’s claim stated that her recollection of the abuse and its psychological impact emerged only after her father’s death, supported by communications from mental health professionals.
Accepting this as the moment of “knowledge” under Article 2926.1, the Court concluded that the prescription period began in May 2013. The action, filed on May 11, 2016, was therefore within both the 30-year window from discovery and the 3-year window from the death of the accused. Justice Gibeau acknowledged that, although the action was not time-bared at this stage, the plaintiff remained responsible for establishing the precise moment of discovery. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the motion to reject the claim, confirming that the action was not prescribed under the applicable legal framework.
The judgment underscores a victim-centered interpretation of prescription, recognizing the psychological complexity of trauma and the legitimacy of delayed awareness in cases of childhood sexual abuse.
Allen Madelin Avocats: Leaders in Succession and Estate Law
For more than a decade, Allen Madelin Avocats has been a trusted name in succession law, estate disputes, family law, and civil litigation. Our lawyers are dedicated to protecting the last wishes of the deceased and the rights of heirs with precision and determination.
Allen Madelin Avocats offer consultations both in person and via videoconference. The first consultation is offered for $125.For more information, please contact us by telephone: 1 514 904 4017 or by e-mail: [email protected].
Initial consultation: $125
Phone: 514-904-4017
Email: [email protected]
