Court and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2023-04-20 Docket: COA-22-CV-0027

Doherty, Zarnett and Sossin JJ.A.

Between:

KVM Investments Limited Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Gino Isabella Defendant (Appellant)

Counsel: Dannial Baker, for the appellant Zachary Pringle, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: April 18, 2023

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Frederick L. Myers of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 13, 2022, with reasons reported at 2022 ONSC 4125.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is an appeal from a summary judgment motion granting judgment in favour of the respondent. The salient facts are summarized at paras. three to seven of the motion judge’s endorsement: see KVM Investments Limited v. Isabella, 2022 ONSC 4125.

[2] The appellant claims he was not obliged to repay the interest owed on the debts because the appellant’s friend and lawyer, who was involved in negotiating the original loan, misrepresented the nature of the loan to the appellant. On the appellant’s submission, the lawyer was, in fact, the borrower. The appellant indicates that he counted entirely on his lawyer to look after his interests in this matter.

[3] The appellant further submits that his lawyer was also a friend and business partner of the respondent lender and was in a conflict of interest in respect of the loan, and may have been engaged in joint criminal activity with the respondent in respect of the arrangement of the loan in issue and other loans.

[4] The motion judge considered these submissions. He rejected them, either because they had no support in the evidence, or because they provided no defence as a matter of law to the claim advanced by the appellant. We agree with the analysis of the motion judge, particularly at paras. 20 to 21, and 27 to 28. The appeal is dismissed.

[5] The appellant challenges the costs order made by the motion judge, although he did not seek leave to appeal. The respondent was entitled under the terms of the loan to full indemnity for costs incurred in respect of steps taken to collect on the debt. We see no reason to question the motion judge’s assessment of the appropriate costs in respect of those efforts. Leave to appeal the costs order of the motion judge is refused.

[6] The parties have agreed that the costs on the appeal should go to the successful party in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and relevant taxes.

“Doherty J.A.”

“B. Zarnett J.A.”

“L. Sossin J.A.”