Mak Sultan

The appellant appealed a summary judgment in favour of the respondent bank for $383,755 owing on a line of credit.

The appellant admitted to borrowing the funds but argued that a new line of credit agreement should have been issued after the original balance was temporarily paid down upon the sale of his home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a second agreement and affirming the bank's right to demand payment under the original agreement.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding the scope of contracted construction work and the costs of extras.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact.

However, on the respondent's advice of a double counting error, the court allowed the appeal in part to reduce the judgment amount by $7,283.15 to $92,282.64, with corresponding adjustments to prejudgment interest.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.