The parties advanced competing claims to funds paid in Court arising from foreclosure proceedings. The Court previously provided counsel with a Decision which had not yet been filed (and therefore, not “entered” pursuant to Rule 9.13). Counsel sought clarification regarding the Decision with respect to the priority of funds. Up to that point, no Decision had been issued on a limitations issue. The Court exercised its discretion to expand upon the original Decision pursuant to Rule 9.13(a).

The limitations issue arose from a failure to renew a Judgment, but a subsequent action had arguably constituted a new action advanced within the ten-year period with the effect that the party’s Judgment remained in force. The Court noted that 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 limitation period pursuant to Rule 9.21. A Writ of Enforcement remains in force for as long as the underlying Judgment is in force pursuant to Rule 9.20.

The Court held that there was no reason why the party could not have made an Application under Rule 9.21 for a renewal of her Judgment. Had the application been opposed, she could have sought a procedural order from the Court pursuant to Rule 9.21(6) that might, with the exercise of the Court’s discretion pursuant to Rule 13.5, have resolved the issue, or would have placed the party on notice that failing to take any action, her Judgment would expire. As such, the party was limitation-barred from enforcement of her Judgment.