Does a partial execution of a renewal agreement require the payment of principal and interest to be blended?

In Pothier Ferland v. Sun Life Assurance 1974 CanLII 136 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 266 the court held that principal and interest are blended if the “deed does not disclose the true rate of interest payable.” Where the amount of interest can be calculated by reference to the principal amount, rate of interest and mode of calculation, the payment is not blended. Given my finding that the renewal agreements are of no force or effect because of partial execution, it is not necessary for me to go further and make findings about whether the renewals do or do not comply, however, out of an abundance of caution, I will express my conclusions on this alternate basis of relief argued. This is only relevant if any of the renewal agreements are valid.

The original mortgage sets out the principal amount and the interest rate calculated half-yearly not in advance, and does not violate the Interest Act, assuming it did call for blended payments, however the renewal documents are not all as detailed, or are missing. I adopt the view of Feldman, J. in Mutual Trust Co v. Sanati Nov.17/1993, 46254/92 at paragraph 11 that “a renewal agreement must be examined on its own face to see if it calls for blended payments, and if so, if it complies with the requirements of s.6.”