Legal Arguments/Issues: The primary issue was whether the trial judge erred by failing to distinguish between the limitation periods applicable to the underlying debt and the mortgage. Raiwal Holdings Ltd. (RHL) argued that while the mortgage's limitation period was still valid, the underlying debt's limitation period had expired, rendering the mortgage unenforceable.

Held: The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal concluded that the mortgage was part of a new agreement that re-established the terms for the repayment of funds. Both the debt and mortgage obligations began at the same time, meaning Fraser Valley Packers Inc.'s (FVP) claim was not barred by any limitation period.

Background: The dispute arose from a joint venture intended for blueberry farming, where FVP and JND Management Services Ltd. (JND) advanced funds to RHL to purchase property, expecting equity in return. When this was not honored, FVP sought repayment through various agreements and security measures, leading to a formal mortgage agreement in 2017.

Key Findings:

• Mortgage as New Agreement: The mortgage created in 2017 was not merely an extension or acknowledgment of existing debts but a new agreement with specific terms about the debt amount, interest rate, and repayment schedule.
• Limitation Periods: Both the obligation to repay the debt and the right to enforce the mortgage arose simultaneously with the signing of the mortgage agreement, thus both were within the statutory limitation periods when FVP initiated foreclosure proceedings.

Costs/Award: The judgment did not specify the amount awarded; however, the trial decision confirmed the mortgage amount at $2,700,000 plus interest. The Court of Appeal’s decision implies that FVP is entitled to this sum secured by the mortgage on the property.