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.
Khalsa et al. (Wed,) studied this question.