Last year I went to a settlement conference because I was being sued by a 3rd party for money I allegedly owed to them. Originally I made a purchase of a computer in June 2002 which went bad within a week and the stor refused to replace or refund which they now do.The 3rd part came to court with no evidence whatsoever that this even happened and di not have the original bill of sale. The judge ordered them to produce proof in 30 days and they did not. On May 10 2008 they served me with papers claiming that I still owed the money and have given me 20 days to respond. My questions are.1 does the judges order of 30 days not throw their claim ot since they are now in breach and 2 Is it 6 years from the date of purchase for which I have the receipt and they do not apply so that their time to sue would be up as of June 22 08? This paper was sold to the 3rd party in 2005.However that is not when the purchase took place. I never made a payment from that time.

I am in Ontario Canada.

The limits differ from state to state, assuming you are in the US. (I tend to assume that too much)

Here is a link for every states limits.

Debt collection statute of limitations listed by state (http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/SOL-by-State.html)

This should give you the information you are seeking.

Please do not start a new question, as a reply. A reader will just see your reply and have no idea what you are talking about.

Add any additional info as a answer to your original question, that way people will follow all the info on the same thread.

I have merged your two posts

Your question has been posted here, many times by others.

In the search box at the top of this page, type in "statute of limitations for debt, Ontario Canada" and click search.

You will find what you need there.

last year i went to a settlement conference because i was being sued by a 3rd party for money i allegedly owed to them. Originally I made a purchase of a computer in June 2002 which went bad within a week and the stor refused to replace or refund which they now do.The 3rd part came to court with no evidence whatsoever that this even happened and di not have the original bill of sale. The judge ordered them to produce proof in 30 days and they did not. On May 10 2008 they served me with papers claiming that I still owed the money and have given me 20 days to respond. My questions are.1 does the judges order of 30 days not throw their claim ot since thay are now in breach and 2 Is it 6 years from the date of purchase for which I have the receipt and they do not apply so that thier time to sue would be up as of June 22 08? This papaer was sold to the 3rd party in 2005.However that is not when the purchase took place. I never made a payment from that time.

I am in Ontario Canada.



The Statute of limitations on debt in Canada is 2 years. They must put the matter into SUIT within 2 years, not have it heard within 2 years.

Did they? I can't tell.

I believe you have to go back to the Court which gave them 30 days and have that reduced to an Order of dismissal IF the Judge said they must provide proof within 30 days or have the matter thrown out.

Ontario's Limitations Act changed on January 1, 2004. A cause of action based on a debt that arose BEFORE this date has a six year limitation period. A cause of action on a debt that arose AFTER this date has a two year limitation period. When a cause of action arises on a debt can be somewhat subjective but is often regarded as about three months from the debtor's last payment.

As for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the judge's order we cannot state what, if any, immediate consequences there might be without knowing the exact wording of the order. Sometimes a judge will impose consequences others times they will not in which case the matter may need to proceed to trial.

Ontario's Limitations Act changed on January 1, 2004. A cause of action based on a debt that arose BEFORE this date has a six year limitation period. A cause of action on a debt that arose AFTER this date has a two year limitation period. When a cause of action arises on a debt can be somewhat subjective but is often regarded as about three months from the debtor's last payment.

As for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the judge's order we cannot state what, if any, immediate consequences there might be without knowing the exact wording of the order. Sometimes a judge will impose consequences others times they will not in which case the matter may need to proceed to trial.


My apologies for the incorrect info - I looked back through other posts and this has also been posted incorrectly before.

Does anyone know if there's ever been an argument that this is discriminatory? Or perhaps are Canadians (in geneal) less litigious than Americans?