David Downs

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate and individual defendants for the shortfall owing on a defaulted commercial truck lease.

The individual defendant argued the defence of non est factum, claiming he was duped into signing the lease by a third party and did not understand English.

The court rejected this defence, finding the defendant was careless in signing the document without seeking translation or advice.

The court also found the plaintiff acted in a commercially reasonable manner when selling the repossessed truck.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the corporate defendants for unpaid amounts owing on equipment leases and against the personal defendants on their guarantees.

The defendants argued there were genuine issues for trial, including fundamental breach due to defective equipment, failure to mitigate, bad faith, and issues regarding insurance.

The court found no objective evidence to support the defendants' claims of defective equipment or bad faith.

The court also held that the plaintiff had no duty to mitigate given the liquidated damages clause and that the defendants were contractually responsible for insurance.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding amounts.

Two summary judgment motions were brought regarding equipment leasing contracts.

The lessor, National Leasing, sought judgment for unpaid lease amounts, while the vendor, Telepacer, sought to dismiss the lessees' claim for non-delivery of equipment.

The court found that the equipment was delivered, rejecting the lessees' unsupported assertions of non-delivery.

Furthermore, the court held that the lessees were bound by the lease terms to pay the outstanding amounts regardless of the delivery dispute.

Both motions for summary judgment were granted, and the lessees' counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for $67,408.88 owing on two equipment leases for vending machines.

The defendant, an unsophisticated retired nurse, argued the leases were unconscionable, she lacked mental capacity due to a brain tumor, and she was induced by misrepresentations from third-party vendors involved in a scam.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the complex issues of unconscionability, capacity, and due diligence required a full trial with viva voce evidence to achieve a fair and just determination.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the Insurer terminated them.

The Applicant sought ongoing benefits, while the Insurer sought repayment of benefits paid, alleging fraud.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant was capable of working in his family cleaning business and had exaggerated his injuries, as evidenced by surveillance video and inconsistent testimony.

The arbitrator concluded the Applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks and ordered him to repay $36,474.84 in benefits obtained through fraud.