The dates were all there

Letter from the table

To the Cashflow Council,

I support the proposed 15-Day Pay Standard. I am writing from my own records, not from a general impression of what late payment feels like. The dates are in my invoice copies, the follow-up emails, the account portal and my bank statements. Put them side by side and the delay is plain.

On 3 September 2025, I sent a large buyer an invoice for CAD 8,640. The written terms were net 30, so the due date was 3 October. The invoice was not disputed. No one asked me to correct the amount, resend supporting work or explain a line item.

When payment had not arrived, I followed up on 6 October. On 14 October, I uploaded the invoice again through the buyer’s payment portal. On 22 October, I contacted the accounts-payable channel to ask whether anything remained outstanding. My records show that the invoice was marked approved on 5 November. The money arrived on 20 November: 78 days after I issued the invoice, and 48 days after its due date.

A second invoice followed. I issued it on 1 October for CAD 4,275, also on net-30 terms. It was due 31 October. I followed up on 3 November, then submitted the invoice through the portal again on 11 November. It was paid on 12 December, 72 days after issue and 42 days late. Again, I have no record of a dispute about the amount or the work.

Those are not enormous sums by the standards of a large buyer. They are substantial sums to have missing from a small business’s working cash. I had to plan around money that was already earned but not available. I postponed other payments, watched my balance closely and used personal funds to bridge the gap. The strain was not only the waiting. It was having to spend time proving, repeatedly, that an invoice had been sent and was still unpaid.

I tried the ordinary steps available to me: direct follow-up, resubmission through the portal and escalation to the accounts-payable contact. I kept copies and dates. I did not threaten legal action. A small supplier has to consider whether a dispute over payment will affect future work, and the time and expense of pursuing a claim can be hard to justify while also running a business.

The local rules matter here. These were ordinary commercial invoices, not construction invoices. Alberta’s prompt-payment legislation is directed at the construction industry; it does not create a general 15-day payment deadline for every private business invoice. In my case, the written contract set a 30-day term. It did not give me an automatic late-interest payment simply because the due date passed. That left me with the contract and ordinary civil remedies, rather than a simple, automatic process that made the cost of delay visible.

The fix I support would change the incentives and the routine. For a large buyer, an undisputed invoice should be paid within 15 days. If it is not, interest should accrue automatically, without the supplier having to ask for it, calculate it, and risk appearing difficult. Buyers should also publish their payment times, so a supplier can see whether a stated policy matches actual practice.

That would not remove the need to resolve genuine errors. A buyer should be able to raise a specific dispute promptly, and the parties should be able to correct it. But silence, a queue, or a portal status that changes only after repeated follow-up should not function as an unannounced extension of the agreed term. The standard should give both sides a clear clock and make exceptions visible.

I know a 15-day rule would require large buyers to examine their approval systems and payment schedules. That is a real operational change. But the current arrangement already transfers the cost of delay to the smaller party, which has less room to absorb it. A buyer’s internal process should not turn a 30-day promise into a 72- or 78-day wait.

My records do not establish what happens across every industry or country. They do show why the Council is right to gather evidence in a consistent way: invoice date, due date, payment date, amount, and whether the invoice was disputed. Those facts are harder to wave away than a general complaint. They also make it possible to tell whether a standard is working.