Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Gilby v. Rowbotham, 2020 ONCA 51

Date: 2020-01-27

Docket: C67066

Before: Simmons, Lauwers and Nordheimer JJ.A.

Between:

Nigel Gilby

Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim (Respondent)

and

Pansileta Rowbotham

Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim (Appellant)

Counsel:

Pansileta Rowbotham, acting in person

Melinda Vine, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: January 23, 2020

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Joseph M. W. Donohue of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 13, 2019 and May 15, 2019 (suppl. reasons).

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The appellant appeals from a summary judgment granting the respondent judgment for payment on the covenant and for possession of the mortgaged property and dismissing the appellant’s counterclaim.

[2] The respondent’s claim is on a mortgage made in 2012 which matured in October 2015.

[3] The respondent acted as the appellant’s lawyer for many years. Subsequently, he made a series of loans to the appellant which the appellant did not repay. The appellant defended the respondent’s action and asserted a counterclaim alleging among other things: the respondent misappropriated settlement funds owing to her; interfered with other litigation in which she was involved; and coerced her into signing documents relating to what he alleges are loans.

[4] On appeal the appellant asserts that the motion judge’s reasons are inadequate, that the motion judge ignored evidence supporting the appellant’s assertions and that the motion judge dismissed her counterclaim improperly in response to a letter received from respondent’s counsel.

[5] The motion judge’s reasons do not address the substance of the issues that were before the court. Nonetheless, based on our review of the record, we are satisfied there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of the respondent’s claim or the appellant’s counterclaim.

[6] The respondent’s evidence proved the mortgage and the appellant’s default. The record includes documents signed by the appellant supporting the existence of the loans made over time in relation to which she received independent legal advice on more than one occasion. The appellant’s response consisted of bald allegations unsupported by evidence. Such allegations did not raise a genuine issue requiring a trial. Finally, we conclude there was nothing improper about the motion judge issuing a supplementary endorsement without further submissions where respondent’s counsel’s correspondence did no more than request a disposition of an issue argued on the motion but not addressed in the motion judge’s original endorsement.

[7] The appeal is therefore dismissed. In all the circumstances we make no order as to costs of the appeal.

“Janet Simmons J.A.”

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”