Richmond v. White

Richmond v. White

On the evidence the appellant did not provide the required written, signed acknowledgement of the debt prior to the expiration of the six‑year limitation period; the email did not show her participation and payments by her husband did not bind her, so the limitation defence succeeded and the summary judgment against her must be set aside.

Citation
2017 BCCA 330
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Ruby Irene Richmond; Appellant (defendant): Susan E. White
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Summary Trial Judgment (debt/limitation) / Appeal (court of Appeal for British Columbia)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment against Mrs. Susan E. White set aside.
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Acknowledgement/confirmation of Cause of Action, Limitation Act S.5, Summary Trial, Joint Debtors
Source Language
English
Contract Limitation of Actions Civil Procedure Appeal Promissory Note Acknowledgement/confirmation of Cause of Action Limitation Act S.5 Summary Trial +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruby Irene Richmond

Respondent (plaintiff)

Susan E. White

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Summary Trial Judgment (debt/limitation) / Appeal (court of Appeal for British Columbia)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant's actions or communications constituted a confirmation/acknowledgement of the debt that extended the limitation period under s.5 of the Limitation Act
  2. 2 Whether payments made by a co-debtor bind another joint debtor
  3. 3 Whether informal communications or third-party emails constitute the written signed acknowledgement required by s.5(5)

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the appellant did not provide the required written, signed acknowledgement of the debt prior to the expiration of the six‑year limitation period; the email did not show her participation and payments by her husband did not bind her, so the limitation defence succeeded and the summary judgment against her must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment against Mrs. Susan E. White set aside.

Orders

  • Judgment against Mrs. White set aside.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.