Can You Enforce an Out-of-Province Judgment in Ontario After 2 Years?

Can you enforce a judgment from another province in Ontario?

Yes — but you must act within Ontario’s two-year limitation period. A judgment obtained in Quebec, British Columbia, or any other Canadian province is not automatically enforceable in Ontario. You need to bring a separate Ontario court action to have that judgment recognized and enforced here. And like most civil claims in Ontario, that action must be started within two years.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Bertucci v. Toronto Fashion Group Limited, 2026 ONCA 524 (CanLII) is a clear reminder that creditors who delay enforcement risk losing their right to collect entirely — regardless of how valid the original judgment was.

What is the limitation period for enforcing a judgment in Ontario?

The limitation period is two years from the date the claim was discovered. For most judgment-enforcement situations, that means two years from when the out-of-province judgment was obtained. Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002 applies broadly, and courts have consistently held that the right to enforce a judgment is itself a claim subject to that two-year window.

In this case, the Ontario action was issued years after the Quebec judgment was obtained. The trial judge found the claim was time-barred, and the Court of Appeal agreed. Mixed findings of fact and law made by a trial judge are owed significant deference on appeal, and the appellate court found no palpable or overriding error in the reasoning below.

Can a promise to pay extend the time to enforce a judgment?

A promise to pay can sometimes support an estoppel argument — but it must be clear, unambiguous, and relied upon to your detriment. In this case, the creditor argued that the debtor’s promise to repay the debt “when he was back on his feet” prevented the debtor from relying on the limitation period as a defence. The trial judge rejected that argument, finding the evidence did not establish the elements of estoppel.

The Court of Appeal upheld that finding. Vague or conditional promises are not enough. If you are relying on an oral assurance to justify delay in enforcing a judgment, you face an uphill battle in court.

Does not knowing about Ontario assets delay the limitation period?

Generally, no — not knowing where a debtor keeps their assets does not automatically delay the start of the limitation clock. The creditor in this case argued that the discoverability principle applied: because they did not know the debtor had assets in Ontario, they could not have known an Ontario enforcement action was appropriate until later.

The trial judge rejected that argument on the evidence, and the Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere. Discoverability under Ontario law is about when you knew or ought to have known that you had a claim — not about when you identified the most convenient place to enforce it. Creditors are expected to investigate and act with reasonable diligence.

Can a written acknowledgement of debt restart the limitation period?

Yes — under section 13 of Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002, a written acknowledgement of indebtedness signed by the debtor (or their agent) can restart the two-year limitation clock. This is one of the few statutory tools available to creditors who have let time pass.

However, the acknowledgement must meet specific legal requirements. In this case, the creditor pointed to written communications as a qualifying acknowledgement. The trial judge found that the documents did not meet the threshold for a section 13 acknowledgement, and the Court of Appeal deferred to that finding. Not every email or letter referencing a debt will qualify — the acknowledgement must clearly admit the existence of the debt.

What happens when a trial judge’s findings are appealed?

Appellate courts in Ontario give significant deference to trial judges on questions of mixed fact and law. To succeed on appeal, the losing party must show a “palpable and overriding error” — meaning a clear, obvious mistake that affected the outcome. This is a high bar.

In this case, the Court of Appeal found no such error on any of the four issues raised: the limitation period itself, estoppel, discoverability, and the written acknowledgement. All four grounds of appeal were dismissed. This outcome illustrates how difficult it is to reverse a trial judge’s fact-based conclusions, even when the stakes are high.

Practical takeaways for creditors holding out-of-province judgments

• Act quickly. Once you obtain a judgment in another province, start the clock in your mind. You generally have two years to bring an Ontario enforcement action.
• Don’t rely on oral promises. A debtor’s assurance that they will pay “eventually” is unlikely to support an estoppel argument without clear, unambiguous terms and evidence of reliance.
• Investigate Ontario assets early. Lack of knowledge about where a debtor keeps their money is not a reliable basis for extending the limitation period.
• Get written acknowledgements right. If a debtor acknowledges the debt in writing, ensure the document clearly admits the debt exists and meets the requirements of section 13 of the Limitations Act, 2002.
• Consult a litigator promptly. Limitation period issues are unforgiving — once the deadline passes, courts have very limited ability to help you. Our Ontario litigation lawyers can assess your situation before time runs out.

If you are based in Toronto or elsewhere in the Greater Toronto Area and are dealing with a judgment-enforcement issue, our Toronto litigation team is familiar with the procedural steps involved in registering and enforcing judgments in Ontario courts.

UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from our Burlington office and serves clients across Ontario. If you have a judgment from another province and are unsure whether you can still enforce it here, reach out to our civil litigation lawyers to discuss your options before time runs out.

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.