The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants on personal guarantees executed in connection with commercial credit facilities exceeding $3.9 million.
The defendants argued various defences including non est factum, failure to realize on security before enforcing the guarantees, unconscionability, innocent misrepresentation, and lack of independent legal advice.
The court exercised its powers under Rule 20 to weigh evidence and assess credibility and found the primary defence of non est factum unsupported, concluding the defendant guarantor was willfully blind in signing documents without inquiry.
The court also rejected arguments of agency, misrepresentation, unconscionability, and undue influence.
The guarantees were found valid and enforceable and summary judgment was granted to the lender.
