SUPREME
COURT OF CANADA
Between:
Shirley Christensen
Appellant
and
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Québec and
Paul-Henri Lachance
Respondents
Official English Translation
Coram : McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and
Cromwell JJ.
Reasons
for Judgment :
(paras. 1 to 3)
|
The Court
|
Christensen
v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Québec, 2010 SCC 44, [2010] 2
S.C.R. 694
Shirley
Christensen Appellant
v.
Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Québec and
Paul-Henri Lachance Respondents
Indexed
as: Christensen v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Québec
2010 SCC 44
File No.: 33360.
2010: October 13; 2010: October 29.
Present: McLachlin C.J.
and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Cromwell JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Prescription
— Extinctive prescription — Action filed 25 years after alleged
sexual assault — Whether action prescribed.
Held: The appeal should be allowed and the case remanded to the Quebec
Superior Court to assess the evidence.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of
Appeal (Chamberland, Morin and Vézina JJ.A.), 2009 QCCA 1349,
[2009] R.J.Q. 1970, 67 C.C.L.T. (3d) 238, [2009] J.Q. no 7100
(QL), 2009 CarswellQue 7125, affirming a decision of Alain J., 2008 QCCS
2724, [2008] J.Q. no 5695 (QL), 2008 CarswellQue 5910. Appeal
allowed.
Alain Arsenault, Sébastien
Grammond and Caroline Beaudry, for
the appellant.
Jacques LeMay and Guy
Régimbald, for the respondent the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Québec.
No
one appeared for the respondent Paul-Henri Lachance.
English version of
the judgment delivered by
[1]
The Court — This appeal raises the issue of prescription in a case involving
a sexual assault that occurred more than 25 years before an action in civil
liability was filed. The respondents filed motions to dismiss the action on
the ground that it was prescribed. The Quebec Superior Court granted their
motions and dismissed the action. A majority of the Court of Appeal affirmed
that judgment, but for different reasons (2009 QCCA 1349, [2009] R.J.Q. 1970).
We agree with the dissenting reasons of Chamberland J.A.
[2]
The issue of the point at which prescription
started to run raised questions of fact that could not be resolved on the face
of the record. The trial judge will have to assess the evidence to determine
whether, on the facts, inferences can be drawn that establish either that
prescription did not start to run until 2006 or, possibly, that it was
suspended in the circumstances of this case.
[3]
For these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the case
is remanded to the Superior Court, with costs throughout.
Appeal
allowed with costs.
Solicitors for the
appellant: Arsenault & Lemieux, Montréal.
Solicitors for the respondent the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Québec: Stein Monast,
Québec.