If your debt is past its statute of limitation; I would offer them 5 to10% to settle your debt.

Well a small update on my situation.
I actually received a phone call from agency on Friday afternoon. Explaining how this an extremely important matter, and that they are willing to make an offer to settle this claim that would "highly benefit me". They explained how this is a time sensitive offer and I must call her back by 10:30am the next morning.
I suppose they received my defence claim and are now even trying harder.

I'm not going there because I'm not a lawyer, but I know they are filed in BC, Alberta often when banks sue. And the banks get pissed because their lawyers cost a lot.

Think about it this way...IF a bank sued you and you didn't take out a loan, would the courts have some way for you to counter against a false claim? Of course they would.

I'm not referring to this particular situation but you can't just go suing people in Canada without them having the ability to sue you back. Counter claims have to be filed with the defense, I believe it's something like fraud in procuring a debt, but that might be the US law.

There is some info regarding Ontario counter claims here:
http://rc.lsuc.on.ca/jsp/ht/prepareStatementDefence.jsp#s8

That's interesting... Now, I'm curious, on what basis would one typically use for a counter claim?

Most banks wouldn't even consider suing something past the SOL. They're usually concerned about a counter claim, which is what you also may want to look into.

The agency might have approval to sue on their behalf without first getting "signed" approval from the creditor (most banks require agencies to get written approval - outlining why they want to sue) but it's possible that the creditor doesn't even know this went legal if it's being sued by an agency.

You can file a counter claim tomorrow if you wanted to, usually in those cases both parties just drop their claims since it's really a big waste of the courts time.

Mikey,

Have a look at the Courts of Justice act below. Before even hitting the court room you should be put through a mediation process which is geared towards reducing court costs, by allowing both parties to explain their case in front of a neutral party.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900194_e.htm#sched24.1.01

Courts of Justice Act
R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 194
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

RULE 24.1 MANDATORY MEDIATION

PURPOSE

24.1.01 This Rule provides for mandatory mediation in case managed actions, in order to reduce cost and delay in litigation and facilitate the early and fair resolution of disputes. O. Reg. 453/98, s. 1; O. Reg. 198/05, s. 2.

Note: On January 1, 2010, rule 24.1.01 is amended by striking out “in case managed actions” and substituting “in specified actions”. See: O. Reg. 438/08, ss. 15, 68 (1).

NATURE OF MEDIATION

24.1.02 In mediation, a neutral third party facilitates communication among the parties to a dispute, to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable resolution. O. Reg. 453/98, s. 1.

Thanks for all the help everyone.
I never acknowledged the debt in writing, and I'm 99% positive I never said anything over the phone that would imply this either.
I know they have called my place of work several times and attempted to get information out of my payroll department.
I will probably speak with a lawyer when the court date nears,until then my question is this:
(Keep in mind I know no one here is in the field of law, and as such I am asking solely for opinion)
When I walk into court what do I say? Do I admit the debt to the judge or simply say "It's past the 2 years S.O.L" ? Any idea what questions I can expect like: Why did you not pay the debt?..etc

Thanks again

And here's a link to the Ontario Limitations Act, :

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_02l24_e.htm

Acknowledgments
13. (1) If a person acknowledges liability in respect of a claim for payment of a liquidated sum, the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a charge on personal property or relief from enforcement of a charge on personal property, the act or omission on which the claim is based shall be deemed to have taken place on the day on which the acknowledgment was made. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (1).

(10) Subsections (1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) do not apply unless the acknowledgment is in writing and signed by the person making it or the person’s agent. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (10).

I think you’re the ones letting your ego's run wild again. I put up a link backing up my theory; that you can go into court on a verbal agreement. I didn’t state you will win, but a judge will hear both sides and if the judge thinks someone is lying, the judge can award a judgment. Here is the link for you non believers again.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/scc/b4aClaim.asp

Joe, you're letting your ego run wild once again! Ranzzzz can easily defend himself, however, do a little research on the following and then anchor it in your memory bank.

Limitations Act 2002, Ontario

Section 13(10)
Subsections (1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) do not apply unless the acknowledgment is in writing and signed by the person making it or the person’s agent. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (10).

(1) and (2) are regarding debts and interests incurred.

A brief summary of the act:
http://www.glaholt.com/publications/Articles/newpublished/027a.pdf