Court File and Parties

CITATION: TD Canada Trust v. Hall-Tremblay, 2010 ONCA 319

DATE: 20100503

DOCKET: C50889

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Laskin, Moldaver and LaForme JJ.A.

BETWEEN

TD Canada Trust

Plaintiff (Respondent/Appellant by way of cross-appeal)

and

Chapel Hill Pet Studio Inc., Shane McInnes, Marie McInnes, also known as Marie D. McInnes, Natasha Hall-Tremblay, also known as Natasha Hall Tremblay, also known as Natasha Hall, and Luc Tremblay, also known as Luc Gilles Tremblay, also known as Luc G. Tremblay

Defendants (Appellants/Respondents by way of cross-appeal)

Counsel: Sacha Baharmand, for the appellants/respondents by way of cross-appeal Robert Riteman, for the respondent/appellant by way of cross-appeal

Heard and released orally: April 15, 2010

On appeal and cross-appeal from the judgment of Justice Colin McKinnon of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 9, 2009.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Both sides agree that the motion judge erred in his calculations and both sides ask for rectification of the amounts owing by the appellants.

[2] Further, with respect to the amounts owing by Natasha Tremblay, both sides agree that the correct amount is set out in para. 53 of the Trust Company’s factum on the cross-appeal. The judgment against Natasha Tremblay will be rectified accordingly. This rectified amount renders moot the trial of an issue concerning Natasha Tremblay that was ordered by the motion judge.

[3] In respect of the amounts owing by the appellant, Luc Tremblay, both sides agree that he owes the amount set out in para. 52(a) of the Trust Company’s factum on the cross-appeal. The parties dispute the proper amount Luc Tremblay owes under the conventional loan and overdraft. However, Luc Tremblay accepts that he owes at least $10,174.03 plus interest on the conventional loan and $2,120.07 plus interest on the overdraft. Accordingly, the judgment against Luc Tremblay shall be rectified to reflect those amounts and the amount in para. 52(a) of the Trust Company’s factum on the cross-appeal.

[4] In our view, there is a triable issue whether under the terms of the guarantee, and the circumstances surrounding its execution, Luc Tremblay’s liability is limited to 25 per cent of the amounts outstanding under the conventional loan and overdraft or whether he is liable if for the full amount of those outstanding loans.

[5] In the circumstance we order that there be no costs of the appeal.

“John Laskin J.A.”

“M.J. Moldaver J.A.”

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”