The plaintiff bank brought a summary judgment motion to recover amounts owing under a revolving operating loan, a small business loan, business credit cards, personal guarantees, and a personal credit card.
The defendants argued that the action should proceed to trial because the bank had allegedly misrepresented that they need not act to recover business assets seized by the landlord, giving rise to a defence, setoff, and counterclaim in negligent misrepresentation.
The court held there was no genuine issue for trial, finding the landlord's distress had priority over the bank's security, the defendants could not lawfully remove the assets, no actionable misrepresentation was made, there was insufficient evidence of asset value, and the contractual documents expressly relieved the bank from any obligation to realize on the collateral before enforcing the debt.
The summary judgment motion was granted, the counterclaim was dismissed, and the personal credit card reward points claim also failed.
