What is the limitation period for a claim for breach of fiduciary duty?

Tort law has developed an extensive body of jurisprudence addressing issues of liability and damages that has no counterpart in equity for compensation for breach of fiduciary duty. The classic role of equity has been to ameliorate the harsh rigidity of common law rules, originally at a time when precedent was enforced more inflexibly than it is today. Breach of fiduciary duty has pursued this objective since it received its modern delineation in Nocton v. Lord Ashburton, [1914] A.C. 932. But it has been an ancillary role, addressing the gaps and inequities in tort law. M.(K.) v. M.(H.) illustrates the point: breach of fiduciary duty was extended to claims of sexual abuse, specifically incest, where the victim's awareness of the harm and its connection to the abuse is repressed. Enforcement of a short limitation period running from the date of the abuse in such circumstances would result in injustice. In British Columbia, this concern has been eliminated by legislation, the abolition of any limitation bar to claims for sexual abuse.