Does The Recent Case of Oratoire St. Joseph Apply to Sexual Abuse Claims Against an Ex-Husband Following a Settled Divorce?

In Oratoire St. Joseph du Mont-Royal v. J.J. ([2019] 2 S.C.R. 115), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that historical sexual abuse claims may proceed despite limitation period defenses, especially where the plaintiff alleges they were unable to act earlier due to psychological trauma or a power imbalance in the relationship. The decision reflects the court’s recognition of the unique nature of sexual abuse cases and the lasting psychological impact that may delay a victim’s ability to pursue legal action.

However, whether Oratoire St. Joseph applies to a situation involving sexual abuse allegations against an ex-husband, raised over 30 years after the alleged abuse and following a settled divorce, raises distinct and complex legal questions. These complexities stem from the intersection of limitation period rules, the finality of divorce settlements, and the nature of the relationship between the parties.

1. Limitation Periods and Discoverability

The key issue in Oratoire St. Joseph was the plaintiff’s delayed awareness of the harm caused by the abuse, which allowed the claim to proceed despite the expiration of the statutory limitation period.

• In that case, the Supreme Court reinforced that the “discoverability principle” applies to historical sexual abuse claims, meaning the limitation period begins only when the plaintiff becomes aware of the harm and its connection to the abuse.

• Several Canadian provinces have eliminated limitation periods for sexual assault claims altogether, recognizing the unique challenges victims face in coming forward.

• If the ex-wife can demonstrate that she was psychologically unable to process or act upon the abuse until recently—due to trauma, repression, or psychological manipulation—she may argue that the limitation period should not apply or was tolled under the discoverability principle.

However, the fact that she was legally represented during the divorce and participated in a settlement could complicate this argument. If she disclosed the abuse or its effects during the divorce proceedings, the court may find that she had sufficient awareness to act earlier, thereby undermining a discoverability-based claim.

2. Impact of the Divorce Settlement

A settled divorce agreement introduces a layer of complexity not present in Oratoire St. Joseph.

• Divorce settlements often include release clauses that bar future claims related to matters arising from the marriage. If the ex-wife signed a broad release, the ex-husband could argue that it prevents her from pursuing a sexual abuse claim now.

• However, Canadian courts have generally held that releases cannot bar claims for intentional torts such as sexual assault unless the language of the release explicitly addresses such claims.

• Furthermore, courts may set aside a settlement agreement if it was entered into under duress, undue influence, or fraud, or if there was a failure to disclose material facts—including the existence of sexual abuse.

• If the ex-wife can demonstrate that she was coerced into the settlement or lacked full psychological or emotional capacity to consent due to the effects of the abuse, the court may be willing to reconsider the finality of the agreement.

3. Consent and Continuing the Relationship

The fact that the ex-wife remained married to the ex-husband for years after the alleged abuse raises factual and credibility challenges, but it does not necessarily undermine her claim.

• Courts have long recognized that victims of abuse often stay in relationships due to complex psychological, emotional, and financial dependencies.

• Fear, manipulation, and the cycle of abuse can prevent victims from leaving or recognizing the abusive nature of the relationship until long after it ends.

• If the ex-wife can establish that the alleged abuse created a power imbalance that influenced her decision to stay in the marriage or delayed her recognition of the harm, the court may find that the continued relationship does not undermine her claim.

4. Possible Defenses for the Ex-Husband

If the ex-wife brings a claim, the ex-husband may raise several key defenses:

• Limitation Defense: If provincial law imposes a limitation period and the ex-wife was aware of the abuse but failed to act, the ex-husband could argue the claim is time-barred. However, if the province has removed time limits for sexual assault claims or the discoverability principle applies, this defense may fail.

• Finality of Divorce Settlement: If the divorce settlement included a release of claims, the ex-husband could argue that the claim is barred. The success of this defense depends on the language of the release and whether the court is willing to set it aside based on the abuse allegations.

• Factual Disputes: The ex-husband could argue that the abuse never occurred or that the ex-wife’s long delay in coming forward undermines the credibility of her claim.

5. Does Oratoire St. Joseph Help the Ex-Wife?

Oratoire St. Joseph provides important guidance on limitation periods and the psychological barriers to timely claims in sexual abuse cases. However, it does not directly address the effect of a divorce settlement on subsequent claims of abuse.

• The ex-wife’s ability to rely on Oratoire St. Joseph will depend on the specific limitation laws in the province where the claim is filed.

• If the province has removed limitation periods for sexual assault claims or if the discoverability principle applies, the ex-wife may be able to proceed despite the passage of time.

• However, the existence of a divorce settlement complicates the analysis. If the court finds that the abuse was known or knowable at the time of the divorce or that the settlement release covers intentional torts, the ex-husband could succeed in dismissing the claim.

Conclusion

While Oratoire St. Joseph strengthens the position of plaintiffs in historical sexual abuse cases, it does not directly resolve the impact of a prior divorce settlement on such claims. The ex-wife’s success would depend on:

• The terms of the divorce settlement and whether it explicitly covers abuse claims.

• Whether the province’s limitation laws allow for historical sexual assault claims to proceed.

• The ex-wife’s ability to prove that psychological trauma or a power imbalance prevented her from acting earlier.

The case underscores the evolving recognition of the profound and lasting impact of sexual abuse—but whether that recognition extends to the context of settled divorce agreements remains an unsettled question in Canadian law.