The plaintiff sued former business partners over promissory notes said to evidence unmatched contributions and direct loans made during the start-up and operation of a food manufacturing business.
The defendants alleged the notes and shareholder agreement were forged, but the court preferred the plaintiff’s evidence, rejected the defendants’ credibility, accepted the plaintiff’s forensic handwriting expert, and gave no weight to the defence expert report for both procedural and substantive reasons.
Applying the Bills of Exchange Act and Interest Act, the court held the notes were valid promissory notes supported by antecedent debt and forbearance, subject to set-off for one defendant’s proven capital contribution.
Punitive damages were refused, with the court holding that litigation misconduct and disclosure failures could be addressed in costs.
