Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20220303 DOCKET: C70857

Gillese, Benotto and Coroza JJ.A.

BETWEEN

The Toronto-Dominion Bank Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Home & Us Corporation and Asma Parveen Defendants (Appellants)

Counsel: Chandralal Handapangoda and Rajender Singh, for the appellants Natalie Marconi, for the respondent

Heard: February 23, 2023

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Janet E. Mills of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 15, 2022.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant Asma Parveen is the sole director and officer of the appellant Home & Us Corporation. They were sued by the respondent bank on two loan agreements and a personal guarantee.

[2] The first loan, dated June 17, 2019, was for $40,000. The second loan was a Small Business Banking Credit Agreement (CEBA) for an additional $40,000 deposited to the appellants’ business account in May 2020. On May 21, 2021, the respondent made a request for payment on the first loan. On October 21, 2021, the respondent sent demand letters indicating outstanding balances of $42,851 and $40,000 respectively. The respondent sought payment by November 1, 2021. Payment was not made; a claim was commenced, and the respondent brought a motion for summary judgment.

[3] The appellants alleged that they were not informed of the demand on the first loan because Mrs. Parveen was out of the country on October 21, 2021, thus the demand was not valid.

[4] With respect to the CEBA loan, they pointed to the fact that it was a term loan, not due until December 21, 2022, and they were not required to make any payments until then. They also said that the money came from the government so that the bank had no authority to demand payment.

[5] The motion judge rejected both submissions. She concluded that, even if the appellants were not informed of the October 21, 2021 demand on the first loan, it was still a valid demand because the appellant acknowledged receiving the May 21, 2021 letter, which was a valid demand. We agree with her reasoning and her determination that there is no genuine issue for trial on the first loan.

[6] With respect to the CEBA loan, the loan agreement terms provided that it would be administered by the respondent and that a default in payment of any other loan owing to the respondent constituted a default. In addition, a covenant in the loan agreement provided that the appellants would “carry on the business now being carried on”. The appellant’s testimony was that, in April 2020 “all business activities were halted.” Again, we agree with the motion judge that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

[7] The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent in the amount of $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“S. Coroza J.A.”