COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Bemco Financial Services Ltd. v. 12425467 Canada Inc., 2026 ONCA 363 DATE: 20260521 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-1228 Miller, Trotter and Osborne JJ.A. BETWEEN Bemco Financial Services Ltd. Plaintiff (Respondent) and 12425467 Canada Inc., Sasitharan Somasekarampillaai and Laavanya Sasitharan Defendants (Appellants) Granville Cadogan, for the appellants Amanda Deveaux, for the respondent Heard: May 14, 2026 On appeal from the order of Justice Susan Stothart of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 4, 2025, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 3987 . REASONS FOR DECISION [ 1 ] Bemco Financial Services Ltd. (“Bemco”) loaned $1,000,000 to 12425467 Canada Inc. (“124”). It was secured by a mortgage on a rental building owned by 124 at 47 Bloor Street in Sudbury, Ontario. The two individual appellants guaranteed the loan. [ 2 ] When 124 defaulted on the mortgage, Bemco sold the property under power of sale and commenced an action against the appellants for a shortfall of $79,057.87. Bemco successfully moved for summary judgment. [ 3 ] The main dispute on the summary judgment motion was the consideration received by Bemco as a result of the sale. Bemco says it was $1,100,000; the appellants contend it was $1,925,000. [ 4 ] The dispute over the purchase price arose from Registered Instrument SD475685, which transferred the property and included a Land Transfer Tax statement. The motion judge found that SD475685 contained conflicting information. The first page reflected a purchase price of $1,100,000, which Bemco says was comprised of cash and a vendor take-back mortgage (“VTB”) in the amount of $825,000. However, the Land Transfer Tax statement on the third page of this document indicated that the cash amount was $1,100,000, plus the VTB of $825,000. The appellants assert that, if the actual consideration received by Bemco was $1,925,000, there would be no shortfall. The appellants also claimed that Bemco failed to provide a proper accounting of the monies received and charged improper fees. [ 5 ] The motion judge determined that this was an appropriate case for summary judgment. The record before the motion judge included two affidavits from Jeffrey Turtel, the director of Bemco. This sworn evidence appended the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”), the statement of adjustments, and emails between Bemco’s counsel and the purchaser concerning the VTB. This evidence supported the claim that the total consideration for the sale of the property was $1,100,000. [ 6 ] The appellants relied on the affidavit of Mr. Somasekarampillaai, in which he raised concerns about the authenticity of the APS. He appended to his affidavit two MLS listings for the property. The first one, from the listing broker, shows a listing price of $1,199,000 and indicates that it sold for $1,100,000 under a power of sale. He also appended another MLS listing with a listing price of $1,950,000, which was sold for $1,700,000. The motion judge expressed concerns about the authenticity of the second MLS listing, mainly because it showed that 124 was the seller. She ultimately found that it was not credible or reliable. She wrote: The defendants have not produced any credible or reliable evidence that would suggest that the sale price was anything other than $1,100,000. The defendants are required to put their best foot forward, including providing detailed facts and supporting evidence. I find that none of the evidence produced in this motion raises any legitimate concern about the sale price of the property. [ 7 ] The motion judge further rejected the appellants’ claims concerning Bemco’s obligation to account for certain monies, such as interest received on the VTB, rents received and management fees paid, property taxes, and the real estate commission paid for the sale of the property. However, the motion judge ruled in the appellants’ favour in finding that Bemco was not entitled to charge 124 a penalty of three months’ interest on the defaulted mortgage. Accordingly, the motion judge reduced the amount claimed by Bemco from $79,057.87 by $20,990.39 (the three-month interest penalty), for a total of $58,067.48. [ 8 ] On appeal, the appellants do not dispute that this was an appropriate case for summary judgment. In their factum, they advance the same submissions made before the motion judge. However, at the oral hearing, they focused on whether the motion judge erred in the manner in which she dealt with Registered Instrument SD475685. They write in their factum that she erred by “rectifying” the Land Transfer Tax statement, contrary to the requirements of the Land Titles Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5 (the “Act”). They also submit that the motion judge reversed the burden of proof by placing the onus on the appellants to rebut the presumption of accuracy of registered documents as set out in s. 78(4) of the Act. [ 9 ] We do not accept either submission. [ 10 ] The motion judge was not asked to make a rectification order under s. 160 of the Act . She did not rectify anything. She simply considered this document, along with all of the other evidence before her, to determine the total consideration received for the sale of the property. [ 11 ] Section 78(4) of the Act had no application in this case. The focus of the section is on the indefeasibility of title and the protection of subsequent purchasers for value: see Airport Business Park Inc. v. Huszti Holdings Inc., 2023 ONCA 391 , 481 D.L.R. (4th) 696, at para. 44 , leave to appeal refused, [2023] S.C.C.A. No. 347. That was not in issue in this case. Instead, the motion judge was tasked with determining the consideration received for the sale of the property for the purposes of deciding the summary judgment motion. She was entitled to accept the evidence of Mr. Turtel, as well as the authenticity of the documents appended as exhibits to his affidavits. It was in light of this evidence that she rejected the appellants’ evidence as inauthentic. In doing so, she did not reverse the burden of proof. We see no error in the manner in which the motion judge reached her decision. [ 12 ] Similarly, we see no error in how the motion judge dealt with the appellants’ allegations that Bemco failed to properly account for various funds. [ 13 ] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to costs in the amount of $13,000, inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements. “B.W. Miller J.A.” “Gary Trotter J.A.” “P.J. Osborne J.A.”
minicounsel