Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 OCTOBER 2018

Limitation Law And The Enforcement Of Credit And Security Agreements

Bennett Jones LLP
Bennett Jones LLP
Contributor
Bennett Jones LLP

Bennett Jones LLP

Bennett Jones is one of Canada’s premier business law firms. With deep experience in complex...

View firm profile
Explore more from 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,

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

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.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from