George v. CP Aras Inc., 2019 ONSC 6309

CITATION: George v. CP Aras Inc., 2019 ONSC 6309

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-19-02-00

DATE: 20191031

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

HEENEY, SWEENY, FAVREAU JJ.

BETWEEN:

SHERIN GEORGE

Appellant

• and -

CP ARAS INC. & MARS INVESTMENTS INC.

Respondent

Preet Wadhwa, for the Appellant

Edwin Upenieks and Angela Kwok, for the Respondent

HEARD at Brampton: October 28, 2019

ENDORSEMENT (Given Orally)

FAVREAU J.

1In the November 17, 2018 decision to grant summary judgment against the Appellant in favour of the Respondent, Mr. George and the corporate Plaintiff were found jointly and severally liable for $46,967.42, plus an additional $10,750 in costs.

2Mr. George appeals the order against him.

3The Appellant argues that the motion judge ignored his evidence that the Respondent owed him $8,500 and expenses related to the Appellant’s unspecified mortgage costs. He argues that the motion judge only relied on the statement of defence. While the motion judge expressed concern that the defence was bald and did not plead any counterclaim or setoff, he did consider the Appellant’s evidence and Respondent’s evidence. Based on his review of the evidence, he found that the Respondent made a payment of $16,600 which Mr. George acknowledged in writing was received as a final settlement of the inventory. This was a finding of fact available on the record and we find that the Appellant has not established that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error.

4The motion judge also rejected Mr. George’s submission that the acknowledgement was signed under duress on the basis that there was no evidence on this point. Before us today, Mr. George’s counsel argues that the motion judge should have permitted his client to give oral evidence on this issue. However, counsel conceded before us that he did not request an opportunity to file a supplementary affidavit on this issue or to call his client’s evidence at the motion.

5In the circumstances, we see no error in the motion judge’s reasons on this issue.

6In conclusion, we are satisfied that the motion judge considered the issues and the evidence before him and that he did not make any errors of fact or law. His reasons are sufficient to understand the path he followed in reaching his conclusion.

7Costs to the Respondent in the agreed upon amount of $7,500 all inclusive.

8The Appeal is dismissed.

Favreau J.

I agree _______________________________

Heeney J.

I agree _______________________________

Sweeny J.

Date of Release: October 31, 2019

CITATION: George v. CP Aras Inc., 2019 ONSC 6309

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-19-02-00