We have been advised that fraudulent emails and faxes regarding unclaimed insurance money have been received by members of the public from a source claiming to be Aird & Berlis LLP. These communications are not from Aird & Berlis LLP. Disregard them and do not engage with the sender in any way. Please report the attempted fraud by contacting the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.

Back to all publications
Dec 19, 2019

Ontario Court of Appeal Holds Mortgage Guarantees Subject to Real Property Limitations Act 10-year Limitation Period

On December 18, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in Hilson v. 1336365 Alberta Ltd.1 Among the issues considered was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that claims on five stand-alone personal guarantees of mortgage loans were subject to the ten-year limitation period under the Ontario Real Property Limitations Actrather than the two-year basic limitation period under the Ontario Limitations Act, 2002.3

Subsection 43(1) of the Real Property Limitations Act states:

43. (1) No action upon a covenant contained in an indenture of mortgage or any other instrument made on or after July 1, 1894 to repay the whole or part of any money secured by a mortgage shall be commenced after the later of,

(a) the expiry of 10 years after the day on which the cause of action arose; and

(b) the expiry of 10 years after the day on which the interest of the person liable on the covenant in the mortgaged lands was conveyed or transferred.

The appellants argued that the language “any other instrument . . . to repay the whole or part of any money secured by a mortgage” should be interpreted narrowly to exclude stand-alone mortgage guarantees. The OCA rejected this interpretation because: (a) it was not supported by any legislative history; (b) it did not conform to the plain meaning of the language; (c) it would cause stand-alone guarantees to be subject to a different limitation period than are equivalent guarantees found within mortgage documents (as were also at issue on the appeal) or the mortgages themselves; (d) it was not supported by the principles of statutory interpretation, including as set out in the Ontario Interpretation Act;4 and (e) the narrower Ontario Registry Act definition of “instrument” did not apply.5

The Financial Services Group at Aird & Berlis regularly advises creditors in mortgage and guarantee enforcement actions. Details are available at our Financial Services webpage.



1 Hilson v. 1336365 Alberta Ltd., 2019 ONCA 1000 (ONCA); upholding Hilson v. 1336365 Alberta Ltd., 2018 ONSC 1836 (OSCJ).

2 Real Property Limitations Act, RSO 1990, c L.15, section 43(1). Proceeding to which the Real Property Limitations Act apply are excluded from the application of the Limitations Act, 2002, infra note 2, by subsection 2(1)(a) of the latter.

3 Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, Sch B, at section 4.

4 Interpretation Act, RSO 1990, c I.11, at sections 4 and 10.

5 Registry Act, RSO 1990, c R.20, at section 1.

Areas of Expertise

Related Publications

Publications Article
Debtor and Creditor Bring Competing CCAA and Receivership Applications, NL Court Dismisses Both By Sam Babe Feb 20, 2020 On December 30, 2019, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador released its decision in Re Norcon Marine Services Ltd., dismissing both an application by a debtor for continuance of its Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act proposal proceedings under the Companies...
Publications Article
Novel Coronavirus 2019 - Precautionary Measures in the Workplace By Fiona Brown and Lorenzo Lisi Feb 20, 2020 Lessons learned during the SARS epidemic will play an important role given the introduction of Coronavirus, a new contagious and potentially deadly virus. The purpose of this article is to highlight how employers in Ontario take precautionary measures, while also acknowledging the regional ri...
Publications Article
Alta Energy: Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal Rules That Treaty Shopping is Not Abusive By Jack Bernstein, Francesco Gucciardo, Barbara Worndl and Tyler Brent Feb 14, 2020 The Federal Court of Appeal in Alta Energy held that the Appellant, a Luxembourg corporation, could properly rely on the Canada-Luxembourg Treaty to claim an exemption from Canadian tax on a capital gain realized on the sale of shares of a Canadian corporation engaged i...