M(K) v M(H)

Reformed Canadian limitations doctrine for sexual-abuse claims. The discoverability rule was applied: the limitation period for incest claims begins when the plaintiff reasonably ought to have known of the connection between the abuse and their injuries — typically only after therapy.

M(K) sued her father for incest from age 8 to 16. She filed at 28, after years of therapy. The defendant pleaded the limitations defence.

When does the limitation period for childhood incest begin to run?

From the date the plaintiff reasonably discovered the connection between the wrongful acts and the resulting injury. Action allowed.

Limitations begin running upon discovery of the material facts. For incest survivors, the discoverability point is typically when the plaintiff makes the connection between the abuse and her injuries — frequently in therapy. Fiduciary-duty claims for incest may not be subject to limitation periods at all.

La Forest J held that incest is a fiduciary breach, not merely a tort. The power imbalance and exploitation of trust justify exempting fiduciary claims from limitations. For tort claims, discoverability ensures the limitation does not run while the plaintiff is psychologically incapable of recognising the harm.

Transformed Canadian limitations law for historical-abuse claims. Many provinces have since legislated to remove limitations entirely for sexual-violence claims (Ontario's Limitations Act, BC's Limitation Act). M(K) remains the leading authority on discoverability.

M(K) v M(H), [1992] 3 SCR 6, 1992 CanLII 31 (SCC).

La Forest J, L'Heureux-Dubé J, Sopinka J, Gonthier J, Cory J, McLachlin J, Stevenson J, Iacobucci J