This decision relates to funds paid into Court arising from foreclosure proceedings. Both the Plaintiffs and the individual Defendant claimed to have priority over those funds.

An earlier decision related to the foreclosure proceedings granting the Plaintiffs priority over those funds, had not been filed. It therefore had not been “entered” pursuant to Rule 9.13; Rule 9.13 allows a Court or vary a judgment or order before it is “entered”.

As such, the Court exercised its discretion to expend upon its original decision in this decision, pursuant to Rule 9.13. Specifically, to provide an analysis on a limitations issue before the Court.

The limitation issue arose from the failure of a Defendant to renew a prior judgment related to the foreclosure proceedings and funds paid into Court. The Court noted that, pursuant to Rule 9.21(2), a Court may grant a new judgment or order (without commencing a fresh action) on a former judgment that has not been paid provided the application is made prior to the expiry of the 10-year period. The Court found that it was the Defendant’s obligation to apply for a new or renewed judgment under Rule 9.21 or bring a fresh action on her judgment under the Civil Enforcement Act and the Limitations Act within the 10 year period. The Defendant did not. Therefore, the Defendant was limitation-barred from enforcement of her judgment.