COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: 1161267 Ontario Ltd. v. Mei, 2016 ONCA 881

DATE: 20161121

DOCKET: C61027

Feldman, Lauwers and Miller JJ.A.

BETWEEN

1161267 Ontario Ltd.

Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Peter Michael Mei, Dina Mei and Mancuso Motor Car Company Ltd.

Defendants (Appellants)

Benjamin Salsberg, for the appellants

Michael Woods, for the respondent

Heard: November 18, 2016

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Steve A. Coroza of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 17, 2015.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant’s position is that the motion judge should not have granted summary judgment based on the written agreement, the affidavits and cross-examinations. He should have found a genuine issue for trial based on the need to make credibility findings after hearing viva voce evidence, because of the ambiguities in the agreement.

[2] We do not agree. The motion judge interpreted the contract based on the terms of the agreement and of the security granted pursuant to the agreement. He rejected the position of the appellant that he never intended to guarantee the principal amount of funds that had been provided by the respondent. He considered all of the evidence before him in reaching his interpretation. In our view there is no genuine issue for trial that requires any further evidence.

[3] The appeal is dismissed with costs on the substantial indemnity basis in accordance with the mortgage terms and the decision of the motion judge on costs, in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.