In Bossio v. Nutok Corporation, Justice Kershman held that a document referred to as an “undertaking” can still be a demand obligation for the purposes of section 5(3) of the Limitations Act, 2002:
[224] While the demand in the case at hand is referred to as an Undertaking, it does not set out the specific amount of debt owing, and it is not signed by the lenders or their authorized agents, the Court finds that, on this particular set of facts, sufficient demand has, nonetheless, been made (See: Dow v. Canadian Commercial Bank, 1986 CarswellOnt 4633, at paras 20 and 26). The Court is persuaded by the fact that the demand provided notice in writing, required immediate repayment via an immediate payment plan, set a deadline for repayment, as well as a reasonable period of time for repayment of 50% of the debts. Moreover, the fact that Mr. Bossio signed the demand ensured that notice was provided and received by the borrower, fulfilling the underlying purpose of the demand: to notify the borrower of the lender’s “right to immediate repayment of such loans”.
Justice Kershman found that the demand was delivered more than two years before the action was commenced, and was therefore barred by the expiry of the limitation period. If you’d like a reminder why the lender’s delivery of a demand causes the limitation period to commence, notwithstanding the apparent meaning of section 5(3), see the Court of Appeal decision in Hare v. Hare.
