Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil liability - Action - Preliminary exception - Extinctive prescription - Impossibility to act - Allegations that minor sexually abused by priest - Parents choosing not to bring proceedings at time of abuse - Whether trial judge erred in dismissing Appellant’s action on basis of prescription at stage of motion to dismiss - Whether there evidence in pleadings and in record establishing that prescription began to run only in 2006 - Whether there evidence in pleadings and in record establishing that it was impossible in fact for Appellant or her parents to act and that prescription was accordingly suspended - Whether there evidence in pleadings and in record establishing that Appellant had sustained distinct injuries that subject to different prescriptive periods - Whether Respondents are acting in bad faith and whether they are committing an abuse of right in invoking prescription.

On June 28, 2007, Ms. Shirley Christensen filed a motion to institute proceedings against the Respondents, claiming $250,000 in damages. She alleged that she had been sexually abused by Paul-Henri Lachance in the late 1970s when she was between the ages of six and eight. She alleged that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Québec was responsible for Mr. Lachance as a principal and had himself committed a fault at the relevant time. In her motion, Ms. Christensen alleged that she had confided in her parents when she was eight years old. They had gone to see the Archbishop, who had told them not to disclose the matter and said that the diocese would deal with the situation internally. Ms. Christensen’s parents, who were strong believers and churchgoers at the time, complied.

Ms. Christensen alleged that during the summer of 2006, she had recalled the trauma she had suffered and had become aware of the magnitude of what she had been through and all the negative consequences she had suffered since being abused, psychological trauma in particular. Ms. Christensen alleged that before then, she had been completely incapable of acting and therefore of bringing proceedings against the Respondents.

The Respondents moved to dismiss the action on the ground of prescription. The Superior Court granted their motions and dismissed the action. A majority of the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, but for different reasons.