Josh Suttner

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate borrower and its guarantors after the borrower defaulted on a loan and was placed into receivership.

The defendants argued they were induced to sign the guarantees by misrepresentations from their lawyer, who also acted for the bank, regarding the priority of the bank's security interest.

Using enhanced fact-finding powers to hear oral evidence, the court found the defendants' evidence lacked credibility and that no misrepresentations were made.

The court held the guarantees were absolute and unconditional, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the outstanding loan amount.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment entered against them after they failed to attend a virtual trial.

The appellants had requested an adjournment, citing a desire for an in-person trial and their agent's presence in Florida, which the trial judge refused.

The Divisional Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to refuse the adjournment, noting the appellants' reasons were illogical and lacked detail.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement arising from a defaulted loan and promissory note.

The defendants argued the underlying debt was statute-barred, the interest rate was criminal, and the individual defendant did not sign as a guarantor.

The court found the promissory note was a demand obligation, the limitation period was extended by the COVID-19 suspension and a valid email acknowledgment, and the individual defendant clearly signed as a guarantor.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The respondents, who were largely successful in defending a shareholder oppression application, sought costs including substantial indemnity costs from the date of an offer to settle.

The court found that the offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences because it omitted the applicant's statutory right to audited financial statements, an issue on which the applicant was successful.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs, reduced by 25% to reflect the applicant's partial success, fixing costs at $75,000.

Following a judgment granting the applicant tenant a declaration of unlawful lease termination and restoring possession, the tenant sought costs of up to $24,637.91 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the tenant's limited success on its arguments, and the reasonable settlement offers made by the landlord.

Finding that Rule 49 cost consequences were not appropriate, the court fixed costs payable to the tenant at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant commercial tenant brought an urgent application to recover possession of leased premises after being locked out by the respondent landlord for non-payment of a security deposit.

The parties had orally agreed to an installment plan for the deposit, but the tenant missed the first payment.

The landlord issued a notice of default and terminated the lease shortly after.

The court found that while there was an oral agreement for installments, there was no agreement to waive the five-business-day notice period required by the lease for default of Additional Rent.

Therefore, the termination was premature and unlawful.

The court ordered the landlord to restore possession to the tenant, conditional on payment of the deposit and rent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to claim a $100,000 deposit after the defendant purchasers failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants had submitted an unconditional offer but failed to close due to financing issues, and subsequently attempted to cloud the title to prevent resale.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the deposit was a true deposit subject to forfeiture.

The court rejected the defendants' claim for relief from forfeiture, finding the deposit amount proportionate and no unconscionability in the plaintiffs retaining it.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The applicant brought an application without notice to register a default judgment obtained in Michigan against the respondents.

The respondents had signed a promissory note governed by Michigan law, failed to repay it, and did not defend the Michigan action despite being served.

The court found that the requirements under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act were met and granted the order to register the judgment in Ontario.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking declarations of share ownership, directorship, invalidity of mortgages, and financial disclosure in a dispute over the sale of a hotel.

The defendants opposed, arguing a trial was necessary due to significant credibility issues and the inappropriateness of partial summary judgment, and also brought their own cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning witness credibility and the inability to readily bifurcate liability from remedy without risking inefficient duplication or inconsistent findings.