Daniel R. Lilko

The plaintiff, Business Development Bank of Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor, Kuruppu Appuham Jayatissa, seeking recovery of outstanding loan amounts and a declaration of fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendant resisted the motion, arguing that she was deceived by a third party to whom she transferred the funds for real estate investments, and that a full trial was required.

The court found that the third-party dispute did not affect the defendant's liability under her personal guarantee and that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment for $97,158.46 and declared that the defendant had fraudulently misrepresented the purpose of the loan.

This is a costs decision following a trial regarding payment of four invoices for accounting services.

The plaintiff, Bazar McBean LLP, succeeded in obtaining judgment for three of the four invoices against the corporate defendant and its principal, Brian Alger.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff but reduced the amount sought, reflecting the plaintiff’s lack of success on its interest claim and the defendants’ partial success.

The decision discusses the application of Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the impact of settlement offers.

The plaintiff, Bazar McBean LLP, sought judgment against the defendants, 1583057 Ontario Inc. (operating as The Pop Shoppe) and its principal Brian Alger, for unpaid accounting invoices.

The court considered whether the claims were statute-barred, the entitlement to payment under the invoices, Mr. Alger’s personal liability, and the entitlement to interest.

The court found that only one invoice was statute-barred, that the plaintiff was entitled to payment for the remaining invoices (with a minor reduction), that Mr. Alger was personally liable, and that interest was to be calculated at the Courts of Justice Act rate, not the contractual rate, due to the parties’ conduct.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the beneficial ownership of four residential properties and a costs award.

The trial judge had found that funds advanced by the respondents were investments, not loans, and made findings on beneficial ownership and renovation quality based on witness credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's factual findings due to the high deference owed to such findings and the appellants' failure to provide a complete trial record.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied as it was out of time and did not meet the high threshold for granting leave.

The court also rejected a new argument raised on appeal concerning the Statute of Frauds, as it was not raised at trial and the necessary record was incomplete.

The plaintiffs and defendants engaged in a series of real estate transactions involving four properties, operating largely on oral agreements.

Disputes arose regarding the beneficial ownership of the properties and claims for renovation work performed by the defendants.

The court applied principles of oral contract formation and resulting trust to determine the parties' respective interests based on their financial contributions.

The court found largely in favour of the plaintiffs, granting them sole ownership of two properties, a majority interest in a third, and a half interest in the fourth, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaim for defective renovation work.