Ms. Dhillon

Addendum to a prior decision addressing an argument concerning the applicability of s. 25 of the Personal Property Security Act regarding security interests in proceeds.

The applicant argued that the respondent’s consent to franchise agreement transfers eliminated the priority of the respondent’s security interest over those agreements.

The court accepted that the respondent’s signature constituted consent to the transfers and that, under s. 25 of the PPSA, the respondent’s security interest would not have priority over the applicant’s with respect to the franchise agreements in evidence.

However, the court declined to extend the finding to franchise agreements not supported by evidence in the record.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment to declare a related corporate defendant liable for a payment stream under a settlement agreement, and to declare her security interest had priority over the principal's personal PPSA registration.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to set aside prior ex parte orders enforcing the settlement.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the related company liable as a guarantor due to the transfer of franchise agreements, and held the principal's security lost priority for failing to register a financing change statement under s. 48 of the PPSA.

The defendants' cross-motion was dismissed as the settlement agreement clearly permitted multiple remedies upon default.