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.
Archive
Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…
Read MoreJonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…
Read MoreBruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…
Read MoreIn preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…
Read MorePerlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3 the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…
Read More