How have the courts interpreted the Statement of Guarantees Acknowledgment Act?

In this case the plaintiff does not deny that she understood the nature and effect of the guarantee, its amount and the consequences of default in payment by the Gise company. She does not deny that the defendant loaned the money which was the subject of her guarantee and that the money has not been repaid. She admits that she attended before a notary public and actually received advice as to the nature and effect of the guarantee. She simply attempts to avoid her obligations thereunder by the failure of the defendant to require the prescribed form to be completed under the Guarantees Acknowledgment Act, notwithstanding the fact that she signed the guarantee with a full understanding of the possible consequences. To allow her to succeed on this argument would be to allow her "a means of escape from an agreement properly made," in the words of Martland J. in Senstad v. Makus, 1977 CanLII 201 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 44, 4 Alta. L.R. (2d) 160, 2 R.P.R. 149, 1 R.F.L. (2d) 63, [1977] 5 W.W.R. 731, 79 D.L.R. (3d) 321, 17 N.R. 361, 6 A.R. 451.