Saad Suleman

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant on a personal guarantee for chargebacks totalling $234,171.89 plus fees.

The defendant, a director and owner of a furniture retail business, had signed both a card acceptance agreement with the plaintiff for payment processing services and a personal guarantee of the business's obligations.

After the business ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy, the plaintiff sought to enforce the guarantee.

The defendant argued that summary judgment was inappropriate, that the contract was unconscionable, that proper demand was not made, and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, finding no genuine issues requiring trial and rejecting all of the defendant's defences.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 37.14(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a summary judgment order granted by Justice Stevenson on January 8, 2025.

The defendants' counsel served a last-minute motion to remove himself as counsel and adjourn the hearing at 7:48 pm the night before the hearing.

Counsel did not attend the hearing, claiming an unexpected medical matter.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding that: (1) the medical evidence did not support an urgent medical condition preventing counsel's attendance; (2) counsel made an informed decision not to attend without proper reason; and (3) the defendant's email at 10:22 am did not establish insufficient notice.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $6,000 to the plaintiffs.

The appellants, purchasers of a residential property, appealed a Superior Court order granting summary judgment to the respondent vendor.

The action, commenced under Simplified Procedure, alleged breaches of warranties in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale concerning the pool, hot tub, and heating systems.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial, concluding the appellants failed to establish liability based on warranty wording and lacked admissible evidence of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings on liability and damages, and upholding the decision that examinations conducted were inadmissible under Rule 76.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent was awarded costs on appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking indemnification under a commercial insurance policy for cellphone stock allegedly damaged by a toilet backup.

The parties had previously engaged in an appraisal process which left a category of 'disputed phones' unresolved due to sample testing.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and the defendant's request for a 'boomerang' summary judgment, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial because there was no evidence regarding the existence or absence of damage to the disputed phones.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage against the defendants.

The court considered whether the plaintiff could charge compound interest on default and whether an $87,000 payment made by one of the defendants should be allocated to the mortgage debt or to separate personal loans.

The court held that the compound interest provision violated section 8 of the Interest Act and was void.

Using its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1), the court found that the $87,000 payment was allocated to the personal loans, not the mortgage.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $374,060.97 plus simple interest, along with an order for possession of the property.