John Contini

The plaintiff factor moved for summary judgment against the defendants on personal guarantees they signed for a corporate borrower's debts.

The defendants argued they subjectively understood the guarantees only applied to the first factoring draw, and later claimed the plaintiff's president orally confirmed this limitation.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that subjective intentions cannot contradict the plain wording of a continuing guarantee and utilizing enhanced fact-finding powers to reject the defendants' late-raised oral evidence as incredible.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a farm equipment dealer, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant manufacturer from terminating their dealership agreement.

The plaintiff intended to argue before the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal that the termination violated the Farm Implements Act, but had not yet commenced proceedings there.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an injunction is an ancillary remedy and cannot be granted where no underlying proceeding exists.

Alternatively, the court held that the requested relief was a mandatory injunction for which the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, and even under the lower threshold for a prohibitive injunction, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.