The plaintiff had reclaimed the land he sold to the defendant, who had defaulted on their pay-by-instalment arrangement. The Court found that, by seizing the land, the plaintiff had extinguished any personal right to recover funds from the defendant. Consequently, the defendant was unable to make use of a debtor protection provision in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
Before so concluding, Hudson J stated (at p. 39) that
"debt" is defined in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary as "a sum payable in respect of a liquidated money demand, recoverable by action," and I think this definition can be accepted as applicable here.