Limitation Law and the Enforcement of Credit and Security Agreements

Bennett Jones LLP
Contact

Bennett Jones LLP

In June 2018, we wrote on the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Leatherman v 0969708 BC Ltd, 2018 BCCA 33, where the court considered sections 14 and 15 of the "new" Limitation Act, SBC 2012, c. 13 in the context of a loan and related security.

The Court held that the limitation period to realize on the security and some interest had expired, unless postponed as the limitation period commenced on default (the trigger for realization) not demand of the related loan. However, the ability to sue on the debt (and some interest) was not limitations barred as the limitation period for an action to recover the mortgage principal began to run the first day after the formal demand. The matter of postponement was remitted to the British Columbia Supreme Court for reconsideration.

On October 4, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the leave to appeal of the British Columbia Court of Appeal's decision.

While any case is fact-specific, lenders should carefully consider the type of loan they have advanced (demand v. term) and when realization on any security is permitted when assessing limitation periods.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Bennett Jones LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Bennett Jones LLP
Contact
more
less

Bennett Jones LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide