The special cultural context of the applicant, who lives in an isolated community in Quebec’s far North, who speaks practically no English or French, who depends on the lawyers accompanying the Circuit Court for professional consultation, who consulted a lawyer at the first or second opportunity shows that he had not abandoned his rights under the Crime Victims Compensation Act, even though his application was filed more than a year after the occurrence of the physical damages.” (Paragraphs 7 and 8.)

• Léveillée v. Howick Textiles, [2002] C.A.Q., 2002 IIJCan37225 (Qc C.A.)
  
  In this case, Mr. Justice Morin, dissenting, reaffirmed that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable ground to relieve a person from failure to act within the time prescribed by law, which is a generally recognized principle. (Paragraph 25.)
  
  But the application was allowed by the majority, on principles of statutory interpretation. The majority found that there was a reasonable ground to act outside of the time prescribed by law.
• J.B. v. The Quebec Minister for Social solidarity, [2000] T.A.Q. File No. SAS-M-07388-0202 (18 September 2002)
  
  The applicant contested the respondent minister’s decision in review dated February 6, 2002, which refused to decide upon his application because the latter had been filed beyond the time prescribed by law and no impossibility to act had been proven.
  
  The applicant met with his socioeconomic assistance agent, with whom he had communication problems because he does not speak French and she does not speak English. The applicant finally provided her with the documents that he thought she wanted, but when he sent his application for review, the prescribed period had lapsed.