Skip to content

New Brunswick government suspends limitation periods and time limits applicable to ongoing proceedings

Catherine Lahey, QC, Iain Sinclair and Robert Bradley

The Province of New Brunswick declared a State of Emergency on March 19, 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic and issued a Mandatory Order stipulating restrictions on numerous activities aimed at slowing the spread of the virus. On April 24, 2020, the Minister of Public Safety issued a renewed and revised Mandatory Order (the “Order”) which relaxed restrictions pertaining to various activities and included a provision which significantly impacts the conduct of litigation in our Province.

Specifically, paragraphs 27(a) and (b) of the Order suspend limitation periods related to the commencement of proceedings as well as time limits relating to the conduct of ongoing proceedings throughout the term of the Order and for up to 90 days following the expiration of the State of Emergency. The suspension is retroactive to March 19, 2020.

The relevant provisions of the Order provide:

27 …

(a)        In accordance with the authority granted me under s.12.1 of the Emergency Measures Act and on the recommendation of the Attorney General, I hereby, retroactive to March 19, 2020:

    • (i) suspend the operation of any act, regulation, rule, municipal by-law or ministerial order that establishes limitation periods for commencing any proceeding before a court, administrative tribunal or other decision-maker; and
    • (ii) suspend the operation of any act, regulation, rule, municipal by-law or ministerial order that establishes limitation periods for taking steps in any proceeding before a court, administrative tribunal or other decision-maker.

(b)         In accordance with paragraph 12.1(c) of the Emergency Measures Act, this paragraph will cease to have effect no later than 90 days [sic] the state of emergency ends.

As noted, these provisions create significant implications both for the commencement of new proceedings and the conduct of ongoing proceedings in New Brunswick.

Commencement of proceedings

Section 27(a)(i) of the Order suspends limitation periods which were due to expire on or after March 19, 2020 until the expiration of the State of Emergency and up to 90 days thereafter. The Order relieves parties intending to initiate claims from the obligation to commence proceedings within the time limit prescribed by any applicable statute or other enactment described in the Order.

For example, if the limitation period applicable to a claim expired on March 20, 2020, the claim is not time barred if the plaintiff/applicant failed to commence the proceeding by that date. Now, in accordance with section 27(a)(i) of the Order, that limitation period is temporarily suspended until the expiration of the State of Emergency and up to 90 days thereafter.  With no expiration date for the State of Emergency in sight, this provision will have a substantial impact upon the course of litigation in our Province.

Conduct of ongoing proceedings

In accordance with section 27(a)(ii) of the Order, all time limits stipulated by any act, regulation, rule, municipal by-law or ministerial order applicable to any steps in a proceeding before a court, administrative tribunal or decision-maker are also temporarily suspended. Consequently, the requirement to take any steps in a proceeding as stipulated by any act, regulation, rule, municipal by-law or ministerial order, including obligations imposed by our Rules of Court pertaining to ongoing actions governed by New Brunswick courts, is temporarily suspended.

For example, if a party was required to file a Statement of Defence on April 20, 2020, that requirement is now temporarily suspended until the expiration of the State of Emergency and up to 90 days thereafter. Accordingly, the ability to enforce prescribed time limits and compel a party to take steps to advance a proceeding is now temporarily suspended as mandated by the Order.

Impact of the suspension prescribed by the order

The full scope of the impact of the suspension prescribed by the Order will not be known for some time. However, in the short term, the provision of the Order suspending limitation periods will have a significant impact on claims management and the assessment of exposure to anticipated litigation as well as the setting of associated reserves. Moreover, the suspension of time limits in ongoing proceedings is expected to delay the progress of litigation beyond the impact already experienced as a result of the partial suspension of court operations.

Close monitoring of the Order for amendments is recommended in order to identify any updates which could impact the period of suspension and the potential scope of this government initiative.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Litigation & Alternative Dispute Resolution Group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top