Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: Bank of Montreal v. Dua, 2026 ONCA 265

DATE: 20260415

DOCKET: COA-25-CV-1006

Huscroft, George and Wilson JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Bank of Montreal

Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim (Respondent)

and

Harpreet Kaur Dua also known as Harpreet Dua and Nanak Partap Singh also known as Nanak Singh

Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (Appellants)

Counsel:

Harpreet Kaur Dua also known as Harpreet Dua, acting in person

Nanak Partap Singh also known as Nanak Singh, acting in person

Mehrnaz Asad, for the respondent

Heard: April 7, 2026

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Vanessa V. Christie of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 7, 2025, with reasons at 2025 ONSC 2816.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The appellants defaulted on their mortgage with the respondent bank by failing to pay property taxes as required. In addition, the motion judge found that the appellants defaulted on their line of credit and Mastercard.

[2] The motion judge permitted the appellants to reinstate the mortgage provided that they paid $3,000 in costs, and they have since done so. However, the appellants argue that the motion judge erred in granting the respondent’s summary judgment motion and dismissing the appellants’ counterclaim, and they maintain that the respondent acted inappropriately and unfairly throughout its dealings with them.

[3] We do not agree.

[4] We see no errors in the motion judge’s decision as to the appellants’ liabilities. Her findings preclude success on the appellants’ counterclaim. The respondent bank was under no obligation to “accommodate” the appellants’ request for interest rate reductions and is entitled to insist on payment in accordance with the terms of the contracts. The motion judge properly found that the counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.

[6] The respondent is entitled to its costs fixed at $4,500 all inclusive.

“Grant Huscroft J.A.”

“J. George J.A.”

“D.A. Wilson J.A.”