K.M. v. H.M. (1992), 57 O.A.C. 321 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
K.M. (appellant) v. H.M. (respondent) and Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (intervenor)
(21763)
Indexed As: K.M. v. H.M.
Supreme Court of Canada
La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
October 29, 1992.
Summary:
In 1985, the 28 year old plaintiff sued her father for damages in tort for recurrent sexual assaults committed when she was 8-12 years’ old. The plaintiff also claimed compensation in equity for the father’s breach of fiduciary duty owed as a parent. A jury found the father liable and assessed $10,000 general damages and $40,000 punitive damages. The trial judge then allowed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that it was barred by the expiration of the limitation period under the Limitations Act. The plaintiff appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the $50,000 judgment.
Equity – Topic 3606
Fiduciary or confidential relationships – Fiduciary relationship – What constitutes – Parent-child – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that incest constituted a breach of the fiduciary relationship between parent and child – The court stated that “fiduciary obligation has apparently not been raised in previous incest cases as an independent head of liability. However, it is clear that such an option is available subject to statutory and other limitation defences specific to equitable claims.” – See paragraphs 67 to 83.
Equity – Topic 3654
Fiduciary or confidential relationships – Breach of fiduciary relationship – Remedies – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that compensation, not damages, was the remedy for breach of fiduciary duty – A daughter sued her father for damages in tort and for compensation in equity for injuries to her caused by his incestuous conduct – The court stated that the distinction between damages and compensation was slight – The underlying objectives were the same for both remedies – Both sought to compensate the victim and punish the father – See paragraphs 105 to 107.
Evidence – Topic 2440
Presumptions – Specific presumptions – Victim’s awareness of effects of sexual abuse – [See
Limitation of Actions – Topic 3010
].
Limitation of Actions – Topic 2
Purpose of limitation provisions – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the three underlying rationales to limitation of actions legislation were certainty, evidentiary and diligence – The certainty rationale provided that there comes a time when a potential defendant should be secure in his reasonable expectation that he will not be held to account for ancient obligations – The evidentiary rationale concerns the desire to foreclose claims based on stale evidence – Finally, plaintiffs are expected to act diligently and not “sleep on their rights”, but bring a suit in a timely fashion – See paragraphs 21 to 24.
Limitation of Actions – Topic 520
Equitable limitation periods – Laches – General – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the defence of laches to a claim in equity – Mere delay was insufficient – The delay must constitute acquiescence or result in circumstances making prosecution of the action unreasonable – Ultimately, laches must be resolved as a matter of justice between the parties – Acquiescence requires that the plaintiff have knowledge of her rights – It is not enough that the plaintiff knows the facts supporting her claim in equity; she must also know that the facts give rise to the claim – See paragraphs 96 to 104.
Limitation of Actions – Topic 1524
Estoppel – Conduct – Fraudulent concealment – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the scope of fraudulent concealment and its effect on limitations questions – The court stated that “whether proceeding under a statute … or under the common law, fraudulent concealment (when applicable) will toll the limitation of either a common law or equitable claim until the time the plaintiff can reasonably discover her cause of action” – See paragraphs 56 to 66.
Limitation of Actions – Topic 3010
Actions in tort – When time begins to run – Discoverability rule – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the limitation period for the tort of incest commenced when the victim discovered the connection between the harm she suffered and her childhood history – “The issue properly turns on the question of when the victim becomes fully cognizant of who bears the responsibility for her childhood abuse, for it is then that she realizes the nature of the wrong done to her” – The court stated that there was a rebuttable presumption that such awareness of a connection materialized when the victim received some form of therapeutic assistance, either professional or in the community – See paragraphs 30 to 44.
Limitation of Actions – Topic 3212
Actions in tort – Trespass to the person – Assault and battery – Incest – In 1985, the 28 year old plaintiff sued her father for damages in tort for recurrent sexual assaults committed when she was 8-12 years’ old – The plaintiff also claimed compensation in equity for the father’s breach of fiduciary duty owed as a parent – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “incest is both a tortious assault and a breach of fiduciary duty. The tort claim, although subject to limitations legislation, does not accrue until the plaintiff is reasonably capable of discovering the wrongful nature of the defendant’s acts and the nexus between those acts and her injuries. In this case, that discovery took place only when the appellant entered therapy, and the lawsuit was commenced promptly thereafter. The time for bringing a claim for breach of a fiduciary duty is not limited by statute in Ontario, and therefore stands along with the tort claim as a basis for recovery by the appellant.” – See paragraph 14.
Practice – Topic 9012
Appeals – Restrictions on argument on appeal – Issues not raised at trial – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “a fresh issue should not be raised for the first time on appeal unless the evidence at trial can fairly support the appellate court’s consideration of that issue” – See paragraph 54.
Torts – Topic 3183
Trespass – Assault and battery – Sexual assault – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that “incest does not constitute a distinct tort, separate and apart from the intentional tort of assault and battery” – See paragraph 14.
Cases Noticed:
Cook v. Lewis, [1951] S.C.R. 830, refd to. [para. 17].
Doe on the demise of Count Duroure v. Jones (1791), 4 T.R. 300; 100 E.R. 1031, refd to. [para. 22].
A’Court v. Cross (1825), 3 Bing. 329; 130 E.R. 540, refd to. [para. 22].
Dundee Harbour Trustees v. Dougall (1852), 1 Macq. 317 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 23].
Deaville v. Boegeman (1984), 48 O.R.(2d) 725 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].
Tyson v. Tyson (1986), 727 P.2d 226 (Wash.), refd to. [para. 23].
Cholmondeley v. Clinton (1820), 2 Jac. & W. 1; 37 E.R. 527 (M.R.), refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. W.K.L., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 1091; [1991] 4 W.W.R. 385; 124 N.R. 146; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 322; 6 C.R.(4th) 1; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 298, refd to. [para. 25].
Stubbings v. Webb, [1991] 3 All E.R. 949 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 27].
Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 37 C.C.L.T. 117; 42 R.P.R. 161; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 34 B.L.R. 187, refd to. [para. 28].
Urie v. Thompson (1949), 337 U.S. 163, refd to. [para. 28].
Raymond v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1977), 371 A.2d 170 (N.H.), refd to. [para. 29].
Franklin v. Albert (1980), 411 N.E.2d 458 (Mass.), refd to. [para. 29].
Johnson v. Johnson (1988), 701 F.Supp. 1363 (N.D. Ill.), refd to. [para. 32].
Mary D. v. John D. (1989), 264 Cal. Rptr. 633 (Cal. App. 6 Dist.), refd to. [para. 32].
DeRose v. Carswell (1987), 242 Cal. Rptr. 368 (Cal. App. 6 Dist.), refd to. [para. 36].
E.W. v. D.C.H. (1988), 754 P.2d 817 (Mont.), refd to. [para. 36].
Lindabury v. Lindabury (1989), 552 So.2d 1117 (Fla. App. 3 Dist.), refd to. [para. 36].
Hammer v. Hammer (1987), 418 N.W.2d 23 (Wis. App.), refd to. [para. 38].
Doe v. LaBrosse (1991), 588 A.2d 605 (R.I.), refd to. [para. 39].
Osland v. Osland (1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 (N.D.), refd to. [para. 40].
Raymond v. Ingram (1987), 737 P.2d 314 (Wash. App.), refd to. [para. 40].
Kaiser v. Milliman (1988), 747 P.2d 1130 (Wash. App.), refd to. [para. 40].
Whatcott v. Whatcott (1990), 790 P.2d 578 (Utah App.), refd to. [para. 40].
Petersen v. Bruen (1990), 792 P.2d 18 (Nev.), refd to. [para. 40].
Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 427 N.W.2d 606 (Mich. App.), refd to. [para. 41].
Nicolette v. Carey (1990), 751 F.Supp. 695 (W.D. Mich.), refd to. [para. 41].
Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 265 Cal. Rptr. 605 (Cal. App. 1 Dist.), refd to. [para. 42].
Gray v. Reeves (1992), 64 B.C.L.R.(2d) 275 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 45].
Levitt v. Carr et al. (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 27; 23 W.A.C. 27; 66 B.C.L.R.(2d) 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].
Gibbs v. Guild (1882), 9 Q.B.D. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].
Armstrong v. Milburn (1886), 54 L.T. 723 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].
Oelkers v. Ellis, [1914] 2 K.B. 139, refd to. [para. 58].
Lynn v. Bamber, [1930] 2 K.B. 72, refd to. [para. 58].
Legh v. Legh (1930), 143 L.T. 151, refd to. [para. 58].
Underwriter’s Bureau v. Massie Renwick Ltd., [1938] 2 D.L.R. 31 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 59].
Piggott v. Nesbitt Thompson & Co., [1939] O.R. 66 (C.A.), affd. [1941] S.C.R. 520, refd to. [para. 59].
Canson Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Boughton & Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; 131 N.R. 321; 6 B.C.A.C. 1; 13 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 60].
Kitchen v. Royal Air Forces Association, [1958] 2 All E.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 63].
447927 Ontario Inc. v. Pizza Pizza Ltd. (1987), 16 C.P.C.(2d) 277 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 69].
Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 70].
Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 74].
International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 14; 69 O.R.(2d) 287; 35 E.T.R. 1, refd to. [para. 74].
McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35, refd to. [para. 77].
Follis v. Albemarle TP., [1941] 1 D.L.R. 178 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].
Henderson v. Johnson (1956), 5 D.L.R.(2d) 524 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 78].
Menick v. Goldy (1955), 280 P.2d 844 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.), refd to. [para. 79].
Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Mallison (1960), 354 P.2d 800 (Or.), refd to. [para. 79].
Fitzgerald v. Newark Morning Ledger Co. (1970), 267 A.2d 557 (N.J.), refd to. [para. 79].
Emery v. Emery (1955), 289 P.2d 218 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 79].
Soar v. Ashwell, [1893] 2 Q.B. 390 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].
Taylor v. Davies, [1920] A.C. 636, refd to. [para. 87].
Hovenden v. Annesley (1806), 2 Sch. & Lef. 607; 9 R.R. 119, refd to. [para. 90].
Knox v. Gye (1872), L.R. 5 H.L. 656 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 91].
Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron (1880), 5 Ex. D. 319 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874), L.R. 5 P.C. 221, refd to. [para. 97].
Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co. (1878), 3 App. Cas. 1218 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 97].
Canada Trust Co. v. Lloyd, [1968] S.C.R. 300, refd to. [para. 97].
Blundon v. Storm, [1972] S.C.R. 135, refd to. [para. 97].
Howlett, Re, [1949] Ch. 767, refd to. [para. 101].
Taylor v. Wallbridge (1879), 2 S.C.R. 616, refd to. [para. 101].
Aquaculture Corp. v. New Zealand Green Mussel Co., [1990] 3 N.Z.L.R. 299, refd to. [para. 106].
National Trust Co. v. Wong Aviation Ltd., [1969] S.C.R. 481, refd to. [para. 113].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 15 [para. 15].
Courts of Justice Act, S.O. 1984, c. 11, sect. 121(2) [para. 69].
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 155(1) [para. 16].
Limitation Act, 1623 (U.K.), 21 Jac. 1, c. 16, generally [para. 90].
Limitation Act, 1939 (U.K.), c. 21, sect. 26(b) [para. 61].
Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 236, sect. 3(4) [para. 85].
Limitation Amendment Act, S.B.C. 1992, c. 44, generally [para. 52].
Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-15, sect. 4(1)(g) [para. 85]; sect. 6 [para. 61].
Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L-150; C.C.S.M., c. L-150, sect. 2(1)(n) [para. 85].
Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. L-8, sect. 6 [para. 85].
Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. L-15, sect. 3(1)(j) [para. 85].
Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240, sect. 2 [para. 86]; sect. 42, sect. 43 [para. 87]; sect. 45(1)(j), sect. 47 [para. 10].
Statute of Limitations, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. S-7, sect. 2(1)(g) [para. 85].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Allen, Margaret J., Tort Remedies for Incestuous Abuse (1983), 13 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 609, pp. 630-631 [para. 31].
American Jurisprudence (2nd Ed. 1982), vol. 51, s. 83 [para. 82].
Aterns, Jerome J., Intentional Interference with the Person, in Studies in Canadian Tort Law (Linden ed. 1968), p. 392 [para. 17].
Brunyate, John, Fraud and the Statute of Limitations (1930), 4 Cambridge L.J. 174, generally [para. 58].
Brunyate, John, Limitation of Actions in Equity (1932), pp. 1-16 [para. 90]; 17 [paras. 90, 94]; 20 [paras. 90, 93]; 21, 22 [para. 90].
Corpus Juris Secundum, vol. 54, s. 36 [para. 82].
DeRose, Denise M., Adult Incest Survivors and the Statute of Limitations: The Delayed Discovery Rule and Long-Term Damages (1985), 25 Santa Clara L. Rev. 191, pp. 196 [para. 25]; 197-199 [para. 66]; 203-208 [para. 81].
Des Rosiers, Natalie, Les recours des victimes d’inceste et d’agression sexuelle, in Common law d’un siècle à l’autre (Pierre Legrand ed. 1992), generally [para. 30].
Des Rosiers, Natalie, Limitation Periods and Civil Remedies for Childhood Sexual Abuse (1992), 9 C.F.L.Q. 43, pp. 51-56 [para. 32].
Finkelhor, David, and Angela Browne, The Traumatic Impact of Child Sexual Abuse: A Conceptualization (1985), 55 Amer. J. Orthopsychiat. 530, p. 532 [paras. 19, 20].
Fridman, G.H.L., Fridman on Torts (1990), pp. 118-119 [para. 17].
Gelinas, Denise J., The Persisting Effects of Incest (1983), 46 Psychiatry 312, pp. 313-314 [para. 18]; 328-329 [para. 31].
Halsbury’s Laws of England (2nd Ed.), vol. 20, paras. 771, 1041 [para. 57].
Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Ed. 1979), vol. 16, p. 837, para. 934 [para. 92]; vol. 28, p. 413, paras. 916 [para. 61]; 919 [paras. 64, 65].
Handler, Carolyn B., Civil Claims of Adults Molested as Children: Maturation of Harm and the Statute of Limitations Hurdle (1987), 15 Fordham Urb. L.J. 709, pp. 716-717 [para. 20]; 722-729 [para. 66].
Hartnett, Elaine M., Use of a Massachusetts Discovery Rule by Adult Survivors of Father/Daughter Incest (1990), 24 New England L. Rev. 1243, pp. 1263-1265 [para. 81].
Jorgenson, L., and R.M. Randles, Time Out: The Statute of Limitations and Fiduciary Theory in Psychotherapist Sexual Misconduct Cases (1991), 44 Okla. L. Rev. 181, generally [para. 81].
Lamm, Jocelyn B., Easing Access to the Courts for Incest Victims: Toward an Equitable Application of the Delayed Discovery Rule (1991), 100 Yale L.J. 2189, pp. 2194-2195 [para. 31].
Legrand, Pierre, Common law d’un siècle à l’autre (1992), generally [para. 30].
Linden, Allen M., Studies in Canadian Tort Law (1968), p. 392 [para. 17].
McCormick on Evidence (3rd Ed. 1984), p. 965 [para. 111].
Meagher, R.P., W.M.C. Gummow and J.R.F. Lehane, Equity Doctrines and Remedies (1984), pp. 326 [para. 57]; 374 [para. 78]; 744 [para. 92]; 746-749 [para. 60]; 755 [para. 98]; 765-766 [para. 100].
Nabors, Kelli L., The Statute of Limitations: A Procedural Stumbling Block in Civil Incestuous Abuse Suits (1990), 14 Law & Psychology Rev. 153, generally [para. 31].
Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General, Limitations Act Consultation Group, Report of, Recommendations for a New Limitations Act (1991), generally [para. 52].
Rosenfeld, Alan, The Statute of Limitations Barrier in Childhood Sexual Abuse Cases: The Equitable Estoppel Remedy (1989), 12 Harv. Women’s L.J. 206, pp. 211 [para. 21]; 216-219 [para. 66].
Salten, Melissa G., Statutes of Limitations in Civil Incest Suits: Preserving the Victims Remedy, 7 Harv. Women’s L.J. 189, pp. 208-211 [para. 66].
Sheperd, J.C., The Law of Fiduciaries (1981), p. 30 [para. 78].
Summit, Roland C., The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (1983), 7 Child Abuse & Neglect 177, pp. 178 [para. 20]; 181 [para. 18]; 183 [para. 47].
Counsel:
James W.W. Neeb, Q.C., and Shelly J. Harper, for the appellant;
Murray E. McGee, for the respondent;
Elizabeth McIntyre and Nicole Tellier, for the intervenor.
Solicitors of Record:
James W.W. Neeb, Q.C., Kitchener, Ontario, for the appellant;
Mollison, McCormick, McIntyre, McGee, Kitchener, Ontario, for the respondent;
Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Lennon, Toronto, Ontario, and Mossip, Tellier, Mississauga, Ontario, for the intervenor.
This appeal was heard on November 8, 1991, before La Forest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On October 29, 1992, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:
La Forest, J. (Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 108;
L’Heureux-Dubé, J. – see paragraph 109;
Sopinka, J. – see paragraphs 110 to 114;
McLachlin, J. – see paragraphs 115 to 119.
