Saroja Kuruganty

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his tort claim for negligent misrepresentation against the respondent.

The appellant had advanced mortgage funds on a property and alleged the respondent made a negligent representation regarding the property's consideration in a deed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the evidence showed the appellant did not rely on the representation when deciding to advance the monies.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant vendor sold a property to the respondent purchaser, accepting two assigned mortgages as partial payment.

The appellant subsequently discovered the mortgaged properties were worth significantly less than the face value of the mortgages and sued for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondents, finding no false representation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there was a genuine issue for trial as the record contained evidence from which a trial judge could infer that the respondents made false representations by words or conduct regarding the value of the mortgaged properties.