Abstract
Although forensic psychiatric assessments of fitness to stand trial are well established in criminal law, the analogous question of civil litigation capacity, particularly the ability to commence or continue legal proceedings, receives far less attention. In this article, we examine the statutory frameworks and case law governing litigation capacity in Canada and the United States. Focusing on decisions such as Carmichael v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. and In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation, we analyze the legal criteria used to toll limitation periods, evaluate how courts distinguish functional incapacity from psychiatric diagnosis, and highlight the presumption of capacity as a core principle. We also consider comparative standards, emerging rights-based approaches under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and the implications for forensic psychiatric practice. Emphasis is placed on the importance of functional assessment and supported decision-making models, offering forensic clinicians practical guidance aligned with contemporary legal values.
Legal capacity is foundational to meaningful participation in civil justice. Although assessments of fitness to stand trial in criminal contexts are routine in forensic psychiatry, the corresponding concern in civil litigation, the ability to commence or continue legal proceedings, is under-examined. Although capacity to consent to treatment has received substantial attention in psychiatric and bioethics literature, capacity to litigate remains relatively neglected, despite its implications for access to justice. Although most capacity assessments in psychiatry center on treatment consent,1 civil litigation capacity requires a distinct, legally grounded functional analysis that reflects procedural fairness, autonomy, and the realities of the legal system.
The stakes are high. A finding of incapacity may result in the tolling of limitation periods, delayed access to justice, or the imposition of substitute decision-makers. Courts must balance autonomy with protection while forensic assessors evaluate nuanced legal and psychiatric criteria.
Unlike criminal fitness determinations, which are supported by extensive case law and procedural infrastructure, civil capacity assessments remain legally and clinically fragmented. This article fills a gap in the forensic literature by providing a comparative analysis of civil litigation capacity across Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions. It reviews statutory frameworks and key decisions, including Carmichael v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc.2 and In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation,3 and offers clinical guidance on functional assessment aligned with evolving legal norms. It also considers emerging trends under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly the move toward supported rather than substituted decision-making.4 We argue for a functionally grounded, rights-based approach to civil litigation capacity that enhances consistency and fairness across jurisdictions.
Civil Capacity in Canadian Law
In Canada, the test for capacity to initiate or defend civil proceedings is jurisdiction dependent and reflects the country’s dual legal traditions. There is no unified national standard articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada. Common law provinces apply a functional, context-specific test rooted in decisional autonomy, whereas Québec, a civil law jurisdiction, follows a codified, status-based model under the Civil Code of Québec, in which capacity is presumed but may be modified through judicial protective measures tailored to the person’s circumstances.5
Common Law Provinces and Territories
Across the common-law provinces, capacity to litigate is presumed unless displaced by evidence to the contrary. The analysis focuses on whether the individual can initiate or respond to a proceeding, retain and instruct counsel, and make decisions material to the conduct of the case. Mental disorder or diagnosis alone is insufficient; the question is whether any impairment actually interferes with the litigant’s ability to participate in the process in a meaningful way.
In Ontario, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires that parties lacking litigation capacity act through a litigation guardian.6 In addition, Section 7(1) of the Limitations Act, 2002 suspends the limitation period when a claimant is incapable of commencing an action for reasons related to mental, physical, or psychological conditions.7
Appellate decisions across common-law provinces consistently emphasize a functional, evidence-based analysis. In Huang v. Braga,8 the court held that capacity is a legal determination informed by, but not dictated by, clinical evidence and must relate to the specific demands of litigation.
In Bell v. Long,9 the Ontario Court of Appeal made clear that a diagnosis or the presence of a disability does not displace the presumption of capacity absent evidence that the condition impaired the ability of the appellant (Melissa Bell) to understand the proceeding or provide meaningful instructions to counsel. The court examined whether the alleged impairments materially interfered with Ms. Bell’s decision-making in relation to the lawsuit itself and concluded that diagnostic evidence, standing alone, was insufficient. In particular, a psychiatrist’s letter indicating that she would struggle to navigate the proceeding without counsel did not establish incapacity, as there was no evidence she was unable to manage her financial or personal affairs during the requisite time.
Civil Law in Québec
Québec adopts a civil law framework grounded in the Civil Code of Québec, where capacity is presumed but may be structured through judicially imposed protective measures.5 The former curatorship and advisorship regimes were abolished and replaced with a modulated tutorship regime tailored to the individual’s abilities, alongside assistance and temporary representation measures designed to preserve autonomy wherever possible.10 These reforms reflect an emphasis on proportionality and supported decision-making principles, bringing Québec’s framework into closer alignment with the values expressed in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).4 Nevertheless, unlike the common-law provinces, Québec does not use a distinct litigation-specific capacity test. Participation in litigation instead flows from the scope of the protective regime established under the Civil Code.
Functional Indicators and Equality
Within the Canadian common law provinces, one of the clearest articulations of functional indicators relevant to litigation capacity appears in Ontario jurisprudence. In Huang v. Braga,8 the Ontario Superior Court identified a nonexhaustive set of considerations relevant to determining whether a person was incapable of commencing or directing a civil proceeding. These include the ability to understand the minimum decisions required, appreciate the consequences of those decisions, understand the nature of the proceeding, choose and retain counsel, represent oneself, distinguish relevant from irrelevant matters, and avoid material misunderstandings of the law or court process. Although not a binding national standard, these indicators have been influential within Ontario and are broadly consistent with functional approaches taken in other common-law provinces.
The framework articulated in Huang8 was applied in Hengeveld v. Ontario (Transportation),11 where the court reviewed the functional indicators articulated in Huang and considered whether Ryan Hengeveld’s impairments following a motor vehicle accident rendered him incapable of commencing an action within the limitation period. The decision emphasizes that the assessment of incapacity is grounded in the medical and functional evidence available at the relevant time and requires careful analysis of whether the impairment prevented the plaintiff from pursuing the claim.
In J.F.R. v. K.L.L.,12 the Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized that capacity determinations must avoid discriminatory disability-based assumptions. The court reaffirmed that autonomy cannot be restricted without clear functional justification, drawing on the principles articulated in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Starson v. Swayze,13 which held that unwarranted findings of incapacity infringe upon the fundamental rights to self-determination and dignity.
Taken together, these Ontario decisions demonstrate that courts require specific and decision-related evidence showing that a mental impairment interferes with the person’s ability to participate in litigation. Although the precise formulation of the functional test varies by province and no Supreme Court of Canada decision establishes a nationwide standard, the underlying approach across the common-law jurisdictions remains consistent: capacity is assessed functionally, contextually, and with careful attention to autonomy.
Carmichael v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc.
In Carmichael v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc.,2 the Ontario Court of Appeal considered whether David Carmichael, who had a significant psychiatric history, was capable of commencing litigation years after the limitation period had expired. Mr. Carmichael, who had been found not criminally responsible (NCR) for killing his son while under the influence of an antidepressant, brought a product liability claim two years after receiving an absolute discharge.
The fatal incident occurred in 2004, and Mr. Carmichael received an absolute discharge in 2009. He issued the claim in 2011, more than seven years after the events in question and approximately 22 months after the discharge, placing the action outside the two-year limitation period prescribed by the Limitations Act, 2002.7 The trial judge accepted that Mr. Carmichael had been incapable of initiating an action earlier and extended the limitation period under Section 7(1). The court of appeal reversed this finding, holding that the presumption of capacity had not been displaced. The court relied on evidence that Mr. Carmichael had retained counsel, participated in other legal proceedings, and communicated coherently about the events, all of which demonstrated that he possessed the decisional abilities required to commence litigation.
Although Carmichael is an Ontario decision, appellate judgments from Ontario are frequently treated as persuasive authority across other common-law provinces, particularly in areas where Supreme Court of Canada guidance is limited. The case, therefore, carries influence beyond Ontario’s borders, contributing to the broader Canadian functional approach to civil litigation capacity.
Carmichael underscores the high evidentiary threshold required to rebut the presumption of capacity in Canadian common-law jurisdictions. It illustrates that incapacity must be anchored in specific, decision-related impairments rather than in diagnosis or general cognitive concerns.
Civil Litigation Capacity in the United States
Unlike Canadian common law provinces, which have developed broadly similar functional approaches through provincial appellate decisions, the United States does not have a unified national standard for civil litigation capacity. Each state defines incapacity through its own probate, guardianship, and civil procedure statutes, and federal courts generally apply the capacity rules of the state in which they sit. Despite this diversity, U.S. courts consistently focus on whether a litigant has the decisional abilities necessary to understand the proceedings, appreciate their implications, and work with counsel in a meaningful way. The inquiry is functional and task-specific, and it turns on how any impairment affects the individual’s ability to meet the demands of the particular litigation.
California
California’s statutory framework, grounded in the Probate Code14 and Code of Civil Procedure,15 establishes a presumption of capacity and requires evidence of specific deficits that interfere with decision-making. Mental illness alone does not constitute incapacity.
In Hsu v. Mt. Zion Hospital,16 the court held that psychiatric hospitalization and mental illness do not automatically establish legal incapacity for purposes of tolling the limitations period. The record demonstrated that Lily Hsu was able to communicate, manage her affairs, and function in a manner consistent with the capacity to pursue a civil claim. In In re Jessica G.,17 arising in the juvenile dependency context, the court emphasized that, before appointing a guardian ad litem, the trial court must determine whether the party understands the nature of the proceedings and can assist counsel, reflecting a task- and time-specific inquiry.
In Andersen v. Hunt,18 the court of appeal clarified that capacity must be calibrated to the nature and complexity of the act. The court held that, for simple, will-like trust amendments (e.g., amendments that largely specify beneficiary shares), the appropriate benchmark is the testamentary capacity standard rather than evaluating capacity under a higher transactional standard. The decision thus illustrates that California courts match the capacity standard to the functional demands of the specific legal instrument. Similarly, in In re Marriage of Greenway,19 the court reaffirmed that testamentary capacity requires only a basic understanding of the act and its consequences and that even hallucinations or delusions do not establish incapacity unless they relate directly to the legal act.
Taken together, these decisions illustrate that California courts calibrate capacity to the complexity and nature of the legal task and require a demonstrable connection between an asserted impairment and the individual’s ability to perform the functions demanded by the specific proceeding.
New York
New York doctrine is shaped by two intersecting frameworks. Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law governs proceedings for the appointment of a guardian for an adult and requires findings of functional limitations resulting in an inability to manage personal needs or property.20 New York Civil Practice Law and Rule (CPLR) 1201 separately governs representation in civil actions involving infants or persons judicially declared incompetent, and adults incapable of adequately prosecuting or defending their rights.21 Together, these provisions reflect New York’s emphasis on functional limitation and procedural protection rather than diagnosis alone.
In Sengstack v. Sengstack,22 the court of appeals reaffirmed that mental illness does not automatically render a litigant legally incompetent. Even where a party exhibits psychiatric symptoms or asserts mental incapacity, legal incompetence requires a judicial declaration. Absent such a determination, the individual retains the capacity to commence or defend a civil action. This framework directs courts and evaluators to focus on whether a formal finding of incompetence exists and whether functional limitations justify the appointment of a representative rather than treating mental disorder as dispositive.
Texas
Texas addresses litigation capacity primarily through procedural and tolling mechanisms. Rule 44 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure permits minors and persons of unsound mind to sue through a “next friend” and authorizes the court to appoint a guardian ad litem when necessary to protect the minor’s interests.23 The rule functions as a procedural safeguard rather than a substantive definition of incapacity. Separately, Texas law tolls limitations for individuals under a “legal disability,” including those of “unsound mind.”24 Texas courts interpret “unsound mind” to require evidence that the condition rendered the individual unable to manage personal affairs or to participate in, control, or understand the progression of the lawsuit.
In Kerns v. Dickson,25 the Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law, reaffirmed that conclusory allegations of mental illness or emotional distress are inadequate to establish tolling without concrete evidence of functional incapacity affecting an individual’s ability to pursue a claim.
In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation
Federal courts apply similar reasoning. In In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation,3 the Eighth Circuit rejected an argument that compulsive behavior and cognitive difficulties prevented timely initiation of suit. Although the plaintiff, Marc Mancini, alleged medication-related behavioral changes, contemporaneous evidence showed that he continued to engage in complex professional tasks, undermining the claim of decisional incapacity. Mirapex demonstrates the federal courts’ insistence on functional evidence showing that the impairment actually affected a litigant’s ability to recognize, evaluate, and act upon legal rights.
Additional Observations
Because capacity rules vary across states, litigants with mental illness may encounter different procedural safeguards and evidentiary expectations, depending on the jurisdiction. Counsel serves an important protective function by identifying potential decisional limitations, adapting communication, and seeking appointment of a guardian ad litem when necessary. This role interacts with, but does not replace, the court’s duty to determine whether a litigant can adequately engage with the proceedings. The practical implications of impaired decisional ability may also differ depending on whether the individual is a plaintiff or a defendant: a plaintiff may initiate imprudent claims, whereas a defendant may be unable to respond effectively to allegations. In either posture, however, the inquiry remains focused on the individual’s present functional ability to participate meaningfully in the litigation.
Across U.S. jurisdictions, several consistent themes emerge. Courts begin with a presumption of capacity and require case-specific, contemporaneous evidence before restricting participation. Psychiatric diagnoses may prompt inquiry but are not dispositive. In tolling contexts, the critical question is whether the impairment prevented the litigant from taking the essential steps necessary to assert or defend legal rights. These principles frame the questions forensic evaluators must address when assessing litigation capacity.
Comparative Legal Reflections
Although Canadian and U.S. legal systems differ structurally, their approaches to civil litigation capacity converge around a shared functional paradigm. Both jurisdictions begin with a presumption of capacity and require evidence that a specific impairment interferes with the individual’s ability to participate meaningfully in the legal process. Diagnosis alone does not satisfy this threshold.
In Canada, litigation capacity doctrine is increasingly framed in rights-based terms, emphasizing autonomy, equality, and the need to avoid decision-making that rests on disability stereotypes. In J.F.R. v. K.L.L.,12 the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed the presumption that adults are capable and stressed the importance of procedural safeguards before orders are made that significantly affect an adult with disabilities. This rights-based orientation is consistent with the autonomy-focused reasoning in Starson v. Swayze,13 which protects self-determination even where choices appear unwise, provided the individual can understand the relevant information and appreciate foreseeable consequences.
The United States, in contrast, does not employ a uniform national test, and capacity determinations arise through a mixture of state probate codes, guardianship statutes, and civil procedure rules governing appointment of guardians ad litem. Despite this jurisdictional variation, courts generally focus on whether the litigant can grasp the nature of the proceedings, understand what is personally at stake, and communicate coherent instructions to counsel. This reflects a broader shift away from diagnosis-based conclusions toward task-specific functional assessment, paralleling Canadian common law principles.
Both systems also recognize that civil capacities vary with context. U.S. law distinguishes among testamentary capacity, contractual capacity, and the capacity to manage property or business affairs. Courts calibrate required decisional abilities to the complexity and character of the pertinent legal act. Canadian jurisprudence, including Bell v. Long,9 similarly requires evaluators to link evidence of impairment to the particular decisional tasks demanded by the proceeding. This ensures that capacity assessments remain anchored in the demands of the case rather than global cognitive impressions.
Québec stands apart structurally, offering a civil law model in which incapacity is addressed through formally established protective regimes under the Civil Code of Québec.5 Following recent reforms, the former curatorship (and advisorship) regime was replaced with a modulated tutorship framework and new assistance and temporary representation measures that emphasize proportionality and autonomy. Although these reforms bring Québec’s system closer to supported decision-making principles reflected in Article 12 of the CRPD,4 participation in litigation continues to depend primarily on the scope of the protective regime rather than on a litigation-specific functional test. This structural distinction differentiates Québec from the common-law provinces’ case-by-case litigation capacity analysis.
The Canadian common law and U.S. frameworks demonstrate increasing convergence: both require courts and forensic evaluators to link mental impairments to the specific decisional abilities relevant to the litigation. The shared emphasis on functional, context-sensitive evidence supports the development of clearer, cross-jurisdictional standards and more consistent forensic practice.
Emerging Rights-Based Trends and the CRPD
There is a growing trend in both Canada and the United States toward rights-based and nonsubstitutional models of legal capacity. This movement has been shaped in part by international developments, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).4 Article 12 emphasizes equal recognition before the law and promotes supported decision-making as an alternative to guardianship.4 The underlying paradigm reframes capacity not as a status withdrawn upon impairment but as an expression of legal agency that may require accommodations or tailored supports.
In Canada, supported decision-making has been most clearly implemented in British Columbia through representation agreements under the Representation Agreement Act.26 In the United States, several jurisdictions, including Texas and the District of Columbia, have enacted supported decision-making statutes that allow adults with disabilities to appoint supporters without transferring legal authority.27,28 These statutes typically apply in areas such as health care, education, housing, and financial decision-making.
Civil litigation, however, remains largely unchanged in both countries. Courts continue to rely on functional assessments of capacity, emphasizing autonomy, the presumption of capacity, and careful evaluation of decisional ability.12,13 Although the United States has not ratified the CRPD, several states have enacted supported decision-making legislation consistent with its principles, whereas Canadian jurisprudence similarly reflects charter-based commitments to autonomy and equality.
Clinical and Forensic Implications
Components of a Rigorous Forensic Assessment
The first step in any such assessment is clarifying the specific legal question. Capacity is never a general trait; it is decision-specific, time-bound, and context-dependent.
The role of the forensic psychiatrist or psychologist in assessing civil litigation capacity entails complex ethics and law. Unlike criminal fitness evaluations, which are supported by clear procedural infrastructure and statutory standards, civil capacity assessments often arise in fragmented, ad hoc contexts. The expert must therefore be well versed not only in psychiatric assessment techniques but also in the legal criteria for capacity in the relevant jurisdiction.
A comprehensive forensic psychiatric evaluation should include:
a thorough clinical and psychiatric history, including past diagnoses, treatments, and hospitalizations;
a detailed functional assessment, focusing on the individual’s ability to understand legal concepts, consider options, foresee consequences, and retain and instruct counsel;
a structured mental state examination, with attention to cognition, insight, executive functioning, and communication abilities;
collateral information, including medical records, prior legal decisions, social work reports, and observations from family, caregivers, or legal representatives;
where applicable, cognitive screening instruments (e.g., the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)29 and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE))30 or formal neuropsychological evaluation, especially where executive dysfunction or memory impairment is suspected; and
an assessment of fluctuation over time, particularly in the presence of mood disorders, psychosis, or neurodegenerative illness.
These components are consistent with the Canadian Guidelines for Forensic Psychiatry Assessment and Report Writing.31
The report must go beyond diagnosis. Courts are not persuaded by clinical labels alone. Instead, the expert should provide a clear opinion on whether the individual possessed the specific capacities required to initiate or continue litigation, referencing the legal criteria established in case law, such as Carmichael v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc.,2 Bell v. Long,9 In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation,3 and Hsu v. Mt. Zion Hospital.16 This includes evaluating whether the individual could understand the nature of the legal claim, weigh options, communicate consistently with counsel, and foresee the consequences of litigation.
Forensic assessors must also be attuned to the ethics challenges inherent in this work. The risk of under- or overestimating capacity carries significant consequences. An inaccurate finding may unjustly deny access to justice or allow proceedings to continue under unfair conditions. Reports should be written in clear, neutral language grounded in objective observations. Where the assessment is retrospective (for example, for limitation questions), the expert must acknowledge the limits of hindsight and rely on corroborated historical data.
The expert should also consider whether reasonable supports or accommodations could have enabled the individual to meet the threshold for capacity at the relevant time, an approach that aligns with the CRPD and the evolving shift toward supported rather than substituted decision-making.4
Finally, forensic professionals must remain aware of the context in which their opinions are used. In civil matters, capacity assessments typically arise in adversarial rather than therapeutic settings, where parties may have incentives to exaggerate or minimize impairment. The expert’s stance should therefore be clinically informed, legally grounded, and unambiguously independent.
Recommendations for Forensic Practice
To support consistency and rigor in civil litigation capacity assessments, forensic experts should:
Clarify the legal question early. When possible, the expert should consult with the retaining attorney to identify the appropriate legal standard.
Focus on functional ability. Center the assessment on specific legal tasks (understanding proceedings, instructing counsel, evaluating options), not on diagnosis alone.
Use structured tools where appropriate. Incorporate cognitive testing and structured interviews when concerns arise regarding memory or executive functioning.
Document fluctuations. Clearly describe any variability in functioning over time, especially in cases involving mood or psychotic disorders, because capacity must be tied to the specific legal timeframe.
Consider supports and accommodations. Evaluate whether reasonable accommodations could have enabled the individual to exercise capacity, consistent with supported decision-making principles.
Remain independent. Forensic experts must maintain clinical detachment while appreciating the ethics complexities of adversarial contexts. This stance has been described as “empathetic detachment,” a balance between compassion and neutrality essential to ethical forensic practice.32
Limitations and Areas for Future Research
Empirical work on how psychiatric evidence influences tolling of limitation periods remains sparse. One notable exception is Mott and Weisman,33 who examine how psychiatric evidence may or may not affect limitation defenses in civil proceedings. Because published decisions rarely include full forensic reports, it is difficult to systematically assess how courts engage with expert findings in civil litigation capacity disputes. These gaps represent an opportunity for systematic study. Future research might focus on quantitative analysis of litigation outcomes involving capacity disputes, cross-jurisdictional surveys of forensic assessors’ methods and interpretations, review of how judicial decisions explicitly engage with forensic evidence in civil capacity rulings, and policy evaluation of supported decision-making frameworks in civil litigation.
Professional bodies, such as the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law and the Canadian Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, may serve as effective vehicles for empirical and guideline-based efforts. Development of cross-jurisdictional training and research networks could help standardize approaches and inform policy reform.
Conclusion
Civil litigation capacity is a nuanced, context-specific construct that sits at the intersection of legal doctrine, psychiatric assessment, and evolving human rights principles. Across Canadian common-law jurisdictions and the United States, courts begin with a presumption of capacity and require evidence that an identified impairment interferes with the litigant’s ability to engage with the legal process in a meaningful way. The focus is not on diagnosis but on whether the individual can meet the decisional demands of the specific proceeding.
Modern case law increasingly reflects a task-specific and time-sensitive understanding of capacity. Courts expect forensic evaluators to address the particular decisional abilities required for litigation, including comprehension of the proceeding, appreciation of its personal implications, and the ability to communicate and work with counsel. These expectations align with broader commitments to procedural fairness and autonomy.
Internationally, the CRPD has reinforced the importance of respecting legal capacity and has encouraged jurisdictions to consider supported rather than substituted decision-making.4 Although these principles have not yet been fully integrated into civil litigation statutes, they are beginning to influence judicial reasoning and the questions courts ask of forensic experts.
This developing legal landscape highlights the need for clearer standards and consistent forensic methodology. Empirical research on how courts assess and weigh expert evidence remains limited, and greater collaboration between legal and psychiatric bodies could support more uniform practice. As civil capacity jurisprudence continues to evolve, forensic psychiatric assessments must evolve with it, providing evidence-based, legally oriented opinions that speak directly to the functional requirements of the case. By grounding their evaluations in the specific decisional tasks that litigation demands and by maintaining a rigorous, ethically informed approach, forensic practitioners play a crucial role in safeguarding autonomy, promoting access to justice, and ensuring the integrity of civil proceedings.
Footnotes
Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.
- © 2026 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
References
- 1.↵AppelbaumPS. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(18):1834–40
- 2.↵Carmichael v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., [2020] ONCA 447 (Can.)
- 3.↵In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation, 912 F.3d 1129 (8th Cir 2019)
- 4.↵United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [Internet]; 2006. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities. Accessed January 15, 2026
- 5.↵Civil Code of Québec, CQLR, c CCQ-1991, arts. 10, 153, 159, 267 (updated to 2025 Dec 11) (Can.)
- 6.↵Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (2026) (Can.)
- 7.↵Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24 (Can.)
- 8.↵Huang v. Braga, [2016] ONSC 6306 (Can.)
- 9.↵Bell v. Long, [2023] ONCA 563 (Can.)
- 10.↵National Assembly of Québec. Bill 18 (2020 chapter 11): An act to amend the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Public Curator Act and various provisions as regards the protection of persons [Internet]; 2020. Available from: https://www.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Fichiers_client/lois_et_reglements/LoisAnnuelles/en/2020/2020C11A.PDF. Accessed March 5, 2026
- 11.↵Hengeveld v. Ontario (Transportation), [2017] ONSC 6300 (Can.)
- 12.↵J.F.R. v. K.L.L., [2024] ONCA 520 (Can.)
- 13.↵Starson v. Swayze, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722 (Can.)
- 14.↵Cal. Prob. Code §§ 810–812 (2024)
- 15.↵Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 372 (2024)
- 16.↵Hsu v. Mt. Zion Hospital, 66 Cal. Rptr. 659 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)
- 17.↵In re Jessica G., 93 Cal. App. 4th 1180 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)
- 18.↵Andersen v. Hunt, 196 Cal. App. 4th 722 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)
- 19.↵In re Marriage of Greenway, 217 Cal. App. 4th 628 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)
- 20.↵Mental Hygiene Law, N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law art. 81 (McKinney 2026)
- 21.↵N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1201 (McKinney 2026)
- 22.↵Sengstack v. Sengstack, 151 N.E.2d 887 (N.Y. 1958)
- 23.↵Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 44 (2026)
- 24.↵Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.001 (2026)
- 25.↵Justia U.S. Law. Kerns v. Dickson, No. 25-40349 (5th Cir. 2026) [Internet]; 2026. Available from: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/25-40349/25-40349-2026-02-12.html. Accessed March 2, 2026
- 26.↵Representation Agreement Act, RSBC 1996, c 405 (2026)
- 27.↵Tex. Estates Code §§ 1357.001–.103 (2026)
- 28.↵D.C. Code §§ 7-2131 to 7-2138 (2026)
- 29.↵NasreddineZSPhillipsNABédirianV. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005; 53(4):695–9
- 30.↵FolsteinMFFolsteinSEMcHughPR. “Mini-mental state.” A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975; 12(3):189–98
- 31.↵RamshawLWilkieTChatterjeeS. Canadian guidelines for forensic psychiatry assessment and report writing: General principles [Internet]; 2021. Available from: https://www.capl-acpd.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/01-Guidelines-FIN-EN-Web.pdf. Accessed January 8, 2026
- 32.↵GlancyGDRegehrC. Empathy and detachment: Ethical dilemmas in forensic psychiatry. In SimonRIAmselL, editors. Forensic Psychiatry: A Practical Guide for Lawyers and Psychiatrists. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 2012. p. 191-204
- 33.↵MottBWeismanR. Mental incapacity and tolling of limitation periods. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2020 Jun; 48(2):271–3
