FORBES v LAGORE

This Decision addressed Cross-Applications for Summary Judgment and Summary Dismissal arising from a family dispute over the repayment of three informal advances of funds totaling $770,000. The Plaintiffs sought repayment of principal and interest on the basis that the advances were personal demand loans. The Defendant denied personal liability and asserted that all claims were statute-barred.

The Court identified two related issues:

(1) whether each advance constituted a loan giving rise to personal liability; and

(2) whether any such claims were barred by the two-year limitation period under Section 3(1)(a) of the Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.L-12.

Applications Judge Birkett emphasized that although liability and limitations were interrelated, each loan had to be assessed independently, both as to its characterization and discoverability.

Applying Rule 7.3 and the principles in Hryniak and Weir-Jones, the Court found that all issues could be resolved summarily. The evidentiary record was extensive, largely uncontested, and capable of supporting findings of material fact without credibility concerns.

On liability, the Court held that all three advances were personal loans, not gifts, investments, or compensation. However, none of the loans contained agreed repayment dates or enforceable interest terms. As a result, statutory prejudgment interest applied rather than the higher contractual rates claimed by the Plaintiffs.

The limitations analysis proved determinative for two of the three loans. Evidence of business failure, admissions of insolvency, tax-loss inquiries, and repeated informal demands established discoverability more than two years before the Statement of Claim was filed. Accordingly, those claims were statute-barred.

By contrast, the 2016 advance of $20,000 was also a demand loan, but there was no evidence of refusal or knowledge of non-repayment until formal demand was made in 2019. The claim relating to that loan was therefore commenced within the limitation period and succeeded.

In the result, Summary Dismissal was granted in respect of the 2009 and 2012 loans as statute-barred, while Summary Judgment was granted for the Plaintiffs in relation to the 2016 loan, together with statutory prejudgment interest.