The appellant challenged a summary judgment determination that funds advanced by one respondent to the appellant and the other respondent were a loan rather than a gift.
The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge was entitled to determine the matter on an extensive paper record, despite credibility issues, and was not required to order a mini-trial or full trial.
The court found no reversible error in the motion judge’s credibility findings or no-genuine-issue analysis, and no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings.
The appeal was dismissed, with partial indemnity costs awarded to one respondent and substantial indemnity costs awarded to the other because the appeal was entirely without merit and repeated baseless allegations of fraud and perjury.
