Claim Restore loses limitation appeal over emergency-work invoice

Claim Restore has lost an appeal over an unpaid emergency-services invoice after a New Brunswick judge ruled that the customer’s email did not acknowledge liability in a way that restarted the limitation period.

Justice Maya Hamou dismissed the appeal in Claim Restore v La Mine d’Or, 2026 NBKB 160, released August 6, 2026, by the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick. The court ordered $300 in appeal costs, separate from the $450 in costs and disbursements awarded when the claim was dismissed in Small Claims Court.

The claimant, 668339 NB Inc., operating as Claim Restore, sought $6,325 plus $2,277 in prejudgment interest from Eastern Jewellery Ltd., operating as La Mine d’Or. Those amounts were claimed, not awarded.

Delayed invoice did not restart the clock

The claim concerned work to secure a building after break-ins in January 2018 and September 2021. There was no written agreement or quote defining the work’s scope. Claim Restore issued its invoice in December 2022 and filed the action on January 17, 2025.

The small-claims adjudicator found that Claim Restore knew or ought to have known the facts supporting its claim when the work was completed. The later invoice did not reset the two-year limitation period. Claim Restore did not challenge those findings on appeal.

Instead, it relied on a February 17, 2023 email. Section 19 of New Brunswick’s Limitation of Actions Act allows a qualifying written acknowledgment, made before a limitation period expires, to start that period again.

The parties disputed whether that argument had been raised before the adjudicator. With no hearing transcript and conflicting accounts, Hamou examined its merits in any event.

Recognizing an invoice is not necessarily accepting liability

By the time the email was sent, the limitation period for the 2018 work had already expired. Claim Restore acknowledged on appeal that section 19 could not save that part of its claim.

The email was sent within the limitation period for the September 2021 work, but its wording presented a different obstacle. Although it expressed a desire to pay what was outstanding, it also sought more information, questioned why an older invoice remained unpaid and referred to estimates lower than the billed amount.

Read as a whole, Hamou found, the message raised questions about the invoice’s nature and legitimacy rather than acknowledging liability for it. Recognizing that a claim has been made is not the same as accepting responsibility for the debt.

The email therefore did not restart the limitation period, and the dismissal of Claim Restore’s action stood.