Quick Credit v. 1575463 Ontario Inc. (Yorktown Auto Collision), 2012 ONCA 221

Case Summary

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a promissory note. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that forbearance from making a demand on guarantees constituted valid consideration for the promissory note. The court agreed with the motion judge's interpretation of the note as the only commercially viable one and found no triable issue regarding whether a prior demand had been made on the guarantees.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Quick Credit v. 1575463 Ontario Inc. (Yorktown Auto Collision), 2012 ONCA 221 Date: 2012-04-04 Docket: C53229

Before: Doherty, LaForme JJ.A. and Turnbull J. (ad hoc)

Between:

Quick Credit also known as 1389060 Ontario Limited Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

1575463 Ontario Inc., operating as Yorktown Auto Collision, Bramalea Imported Cars Limited, Yorktown Auto Collision Limited, Yorktown Auto Collision (2000) Inc., formerly known as 1313337 Ontario Limited, The Authentic Group Inc., Metcon International Plastics Limited, Antonio Ceccarelli also known as Tony Ceccarelli, Loreto John Ceccarelli also known as John Ceccarelli and as Loretto Ceccarelli, Gabriele Ceccarelli also known as Gabriel Ceccarelli and as Gabe Ceccarelli, and 70 Lepage Crt Inc. Defendants (Appellants)

Counsel: Bryan B. Skolnik, for the defendants (appellants) H. Richard Bennett, for the plaintiff (respondent)

Heard: April 3, 2012

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Paul M. Perell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 31, 2010.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] We would dismiss the appeal. The terms of the promissory note acknowledge that consideration was given and the evidence of Mr. Eisen supports the finding that he forebear making demand on the guarantees in exchange for receiving the promissory note.

[2] The material on the motion provided a basis for a “full appreciation” of the issues relevant to the interpretation of the terms of the promissory note. We agree with the motion judge’s interpretation as the only commercially viable interpretation.

[3] We cannot accept the argument that there is a triable issue on the question of whether demand was made on the guarantees at some point prior to the written demand. The guarantees contemplate a written demand. In the evidence, the lender did not make demand on the guarantees during the negotiations which began after the primary lender failed to make the required payments.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.

[5] Costs to the respondent in the amount of $12,000. This includes costs referable to the earlier motions, disbursements and applicable taxes.

Quick Credit v. 1575463 Ontario Inc. (Yorktown Auto Collision), 2012 ONCA 221

Case Summary

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Appeal Book Endorsement

Judges

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues