Marc Gertner

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to enforce a $500,000 promissory note and dismiss a counterclaim.

The defendants argued the claim was statute‑barred and asserted that the loan was actually an advance against partnership profits.

The court held that the promissory note constituted a demand obligation, such that the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 2002 began to run only when demand for payment was made.

The court rejected attempts to introduce parol evidence contradicting the clear written terms of the promissory note and found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the validity of the debt.

Summary judgment was granted on the promissory note, but the counterclaim was permitted to proceed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a joint and several continuing guarantee securing demand promissory notes.

The defendant argued the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that liability should be limited to half the indebtedness because there were two guarantors.

The court held that the limitation period for enforcing a continuing guarantee begins only after a clear and formal demand on the guarantor, which occurred in 2010, making the action timely.

The court further held that a joint and several guarantee permits recovery of the entire indebtedness from any guarantor.

Summary judgment was granted for the full amount of the debt with interest and costs.

The appellant purchased 51.5 acres of land from the respondents, with an agreement to use 'best efforts' to obtain a severance of a one-acre parcel containing the respondents' home.

The trial judge found the appellant breached this obligation and ordered specific performance.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the evidence and erred in awarding specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the record and the award of specific performance was reasonable given the unique nature of the property.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a California default judgment against him.

He argued that the California court's jurisdiction was obtained by fraud, specifically alleging that the complaint falsely claimed he signed certain contracts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a real and substantial connection between the causes of action and California, and concluding that the appellant failed to present evidence of fraud going to jurisdiction.

The court held that the appellant was improperly attempting to re-litigate facts already determined by the default judgment.