Law360 Canada ( September 19, 2024, 12:06 PM EDT) -- Appeal by husband’s estate (Estate) and cross-appeal by wife arising from litigation following breakdown of marriage between DO (wife) and TO (husband). The main issues related to whether certain financial advances were loans or gifts, who was liable to repay them, and the calculation of child support. The Estate's appeal challenged the trial judge's (judge) finding that while the corporate respondent Ridgeway Education Rec Centre Ltd. (Ridgeway) (indirectly owned by the wife) owed the husband $341,000 for advances in 2013, the claim should be dismissed due to expiry of the limitation period. The Estate argued that the judge erred by not treating it as a demand loan where the limitation period started on demand, and by not finding that Ridgeway's financial statements acknowledged the debt, restarting the limitation period. The wife's cross-appeal contested the judge's findings that she was liable to repay the husband $40,346 advanced in 2012 by the husband's company, and the calculation of child support owed by the husband. The Estate argued that the 2013 advances were demand loans, so the limitation period had not expired when litigation was commenced in 2021 after the demand. Ridgeway argued that the demand loan and acknowledgment grounds could not be raised for the first time on appeal....