CITATION: Sierra Flower Trading Ltd. v. Floral Supply Chain Int’l, Monson 2011 ONSC 356
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 622/09
DATE: 20110114
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, ASTON AND HERMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
SIERRA FLOWER TRADING LTD.
Plaintiff
(Respondent)
– and –
FLORAL SUPPLY CHAIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED and JANE MONSON
Defendants
(Appellants)
Nafisah Chowdhury, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)
Jane Monson, In Person
HEARD at Toronto: January 14, 2011
ASTON J. (ORALLY)
[1] The two issues for the trial judge were:
(i) The enforceability of Ms. Monson’s personal guarantee, and
(ii) How much Floral Supply Chain owed to Sierra Flower Trading.
[2] Dealing first with the guarantee: Ms. Monson’s defences with respect to the guarantee were considered and rejected based on findings of fact and credibility. Those findings are not demonstrably wrong. On appeal, Ms. Monson raises lack of consideration for the guarantee as a shield against liability. Though not pleaded in her Statement of Defence, the trial judge considered and implicitly rejected this defence. Even assuming Ms. Monson is correct in her assertion that her company already owed the plaintiff thirty-nine thousand dollars or more when she signed the guarantee in November 2003, the plaintiff had no ongoing duty to supply flowers under any contract predating the guarantee.
[3] The supply of flowers after the November 2003 guarantee, which was executed as part of a credit agreement, constitutes consideration in the eyes of the law. It is of no consequence that the running account and the payments on account included the period between July 2003 and November 2003.
[4] In these circumstances, it did not constitute a denial of natural justice for the trial judge to decline the defendant’s request for surrebuttal on this point. Furthermore, it would appear from the transcript Ms. Monson only wished to address the issue of delay in surrebuttal. It was also not necessary for the trial judge to allow the defendant to address the delay issue. He expressly stated that it was not germane to the outcome of the case.
[5] Turning to the issue of the amount owing: The trial judge based his conclusions on the affidavit evidence and the oral testimony, not just the documents or records. The documents or records were not determinative in and of themselves, but became relevant to the assessment of the credibility and reliability of the plaintiff’s witnesses. The determinations of the amounts billed and the amounts paid are purely factual. There was evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusions. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any palpable or overriding error.
[6] Addressing briefly the two other grounds that are raised in the appeal. First, as to Rule 76 itself. Rule 76, providing a simplified procedure for certain cases such as this one, does not, in and of itself offend principles of natural justice or procedural fairness. Quite the opposite. Second, as to the adequacy of reasons, we find that the reasons of the trial judge are transparent and are sufficient for the purposes of appellate review.
[7] The appeal is therefore dismissed.
JENNINGS J.
[8] I have endorsed the Record, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered today. Costs fixed at $2,500.00 inclusive, payable jointly and severally to Sierra forthwith.”
ASTON J.
JENNINGS J.
HERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 14, 2011
Date of Release: February 28, 2011
CITATION: Sierra Flower Trading Ltd. v. Floral Supply Chain Int’l, Monson 2011 ONSC 356
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 622/09
DATE: 20110114
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, ASTON AND HERMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
SIERRA FLOWER TRADING LTD.
Plaintiff
(Respondent)
– and –
FLORAL SUPPLY CHAIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED and JANE MONSON
Defendants
(Appellants)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 14, 2011
Date of Release: February 28, 2011