On an appeal from summary judgment enforcing three personal guarantees in favour of a bank, the appellant argued that representations by the bank's representative limited or altered his obligations under the guarantees.
The court held that the alleged representations concerning the $50,000 and $35,000 guarantees did not raise a genuine issue for trial because they were contradicted by the documents and the surrounding circumstances.
However, the affidavits concerning the $6,000 guarantee disclosed a genuine issue for trial because both sides acknowledged circumstances suggesting that guarantee may have been intended to apply only to a specific Visa debt.
The appeal was allowed in part and the default judgment was amended to exclude enforcement of the $6,000 guarantee pending trial.
