Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of the debt as a demand loan versus a contingent loan determined whether the limitation period had expired.
   
• Text messages exchanged between the parties were scrutinized to identify whether any constituted a valid demand for repayment.
   
• Several early communications were found too vague or inquisitive to qualify as formal demands.
   
• A March 19, 2020 message was held to be the first clear and unequivocal demand for repayment.
   
• Filing the claim within two years of that demand meant the limitation defence failed.
   
• Absence of any agreement on interest led the court to order pre-judgment interest instead.
   

Facts of the case

Laurie Nelson and Darin Maier were in a relationship from 2013 to October 2018. During that time, Laurie advanced funds to Darin under a 2015 verbal agreement to help finance his farming operation, drawing on her own credit facilities. The arrangement continued through the 2016, 2017, and 2018 crop seasons, with no set repayment date or payment schedule ever established. Between May 10 and October 30, 2018, Darin incurred $145,234.82 in expenses on Laurie's credit facilities under the agreement. He made payments totalling $12,600 between November 19, 2018, and April 16, 2019, and the parties agreed the remaining principal owed was $132,634.83. After the relationship ended, Laurie sent Darin several text messages between January 2019 and March 2020 referencing the debt, and her counsel sent a formal demand letter on May 12, 2021. Laurie commenced her claim for recovery of the debt, interest, and costs on July 20, 2021, and subsequently applied for summary judgment under Part 7 of The King's Bench Rules.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Both parties agreed the matter should be determined summarily pursuant to Rules 7-2 and 7-5 of The King's Bench Rules, with Rule 7-6 raised separately in connection with Laurie's alternative request for trial-management directions on any residual issues. Central to the limitation defence was The Limitations Act, SS 2004, c L-16.1: section 5 imposes a two-year limitation period, section 6 sets out when a claim is "discovered," and section 10 provides that for a default in performing a demand obligation, the relevant act or omission occurs on the day of default. Laurie's requested relief also referenced The Pre-judgment Interest Act, SS 1984-85-86, c P-22.2, and The Enforcement of Money Judgments Act, SS 2010, c E-9.22, in connection with contractual and post-judgment interest, though the court ultimately awarded pre-judgment interest rather than contractual interest given the absence of any agreement between the parties on interest.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Tomka first confirmed that summary judgment was appropriate, noting both parties agreed the matter could be resolved without a trial and that the record allowed the necessary findings of fact and application of law, consistent with the test set out in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7. Turning to the nature of the debt, the court rejected Darin's argument that repayment was contingent on the sale of his harvested crop, finding no mutual agreement establishing a specific repayment event; the debt was therefore classified as a demand loan, drawing on the reasoning in Johnson v Johnson, 2012 SKCA 87, and Kong v Saunders, 2014 BCCA 508. On the limitation issue, the judge applied section 10 of The Limitations Act and the analysis in Gersten Estate v Weimer, 2026 SKCA 13, distinguishing a mere demand from an actual default and holding that a demand must be clear and unequivocal. Reviewing Laurie's text messages, the judge found her communications from January, February, and March 2019, as well as April 2019, too ambiguous to qualify as demands, but concluded that her March 19, 2020 message—referencing her layoff and asking Darin to begin repaying "the $150 thousand dollars"—was sufficiently clear to constitute a demand. Because the claim was filed on July 20, 2021, within two years of that demand, the court found it was not statute-barred, regardless of when an actual default might later be shown to have occurred. Finally, given the absence of any agreement between the parties regarding interest, the court determined pre-judgment interest from March 19, 2020, was the appropriate remedy.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Tomka granted Laurie's application for summary judgment. Darin was ordered to pay Laurie $132,634.83, the agreed principal amount of the debt, along with pre-judgment interest running from March 19, 2020, the date the court found Laurie's text message constituted a clear demand for repayment. Laurie was also awarded costs of both the action and the application on Column II. The parties were given leave to apply to the court for further directions should any dispute arise over the calculation of interest.