Bank of Montreal v. Navdurga Convenience Inc. et al., 2026 ONSC 2667

CITATION: Bank of Montreal v. Navdurga Convenience Inc. et al., 2026 ONSC 2667

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00737291-0000

DATE: 20260504

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

BANK OF MONTREAL

Plaintiff

– and –

NAVDURGA CONVENIENCE INC. OPERATING AS VILLAGE VARIETY, KALPANABEN CHAUDHARI ALSO KNOWN AS KALPANABEN HEMANTKUMAR CHAUDHARI ALSO KNOWN AS KALPANA CHAUDHARI AND POOJA SHANKARBHAI CHAUDHARI ALSO KNOWN AS POOJA CHAUDHARI AND HEMANTKUMAR CHAUDHARI ALSO KNOWN AS HEMANT CHAUDHARI

Defendants

COUNSEL:

Cora Madden, for the Plaintiff

Mukesh Bhardwaj, for the Defendants

READ: May 3, 2026

REASONS ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

MATHEN J.

OVERVIEW

1The Plaintiff, Bank of Montreal, brings a motion for summary judgment against the Defendants, Navdurga Convenience Inc. et al., in relation to a liquidated debt.

2Bank of Montreal claims:

a. As against Navdurga Convenience Inc. operating as Village Variety:

i. payment of the principal sum of $197,530.15;

ii. accrued pre-judgment interest on the principal sum of $197,530.15 up to and including February 12, 2026, in the sum of $41,913.45;

iii. pre-judgment interest on the principal sum of $197,530.15 accrued from January 24, 2025, to the date of payment or judgment herein at the Bank’s prime rate of interest in effect from time to time (“Prime Rate”) plus 3.00% per annum and post-judgment interest thereafter at the Prime Rate plus 3.00% per annum;

iv. an Order for possession of any and all assets of Navdurga Convenience Inc. operating as Village Variety including, without limitation, all personal property, accounts receivable, inventory, equipment, goodwill and intangibles, wherever located including, but not limited to, those assets located at 1148 Fennell Avenue East, Hamilton, Ontario, L8T 1S5 (the “Assets”);

b. As against Kalpanaben Chaudhari also known as Kalpanaben Hemantkumar Chaudhari also known as Kalpana Chaudhari (“Kalpanaben”), Pooja Shankarbhai Chaudhari also known as Pooja Chaudhari (“Pooja”), and Hemantkumar Chaudhari also known as Hemant Chaudhari (“Hemant”, and collectively the “Guarantors”):

i. payment of the sum of $75,000.00;

ii. pre-judgment interest accruing on the sum of $75,000.00 up to and including February 12, 2026 in the sum of $6,186.47;

iii. pre-judgement from February 12, 2026 to the judgment date, and post-judgment interest thereafter at the Prime Rate plus 3.00% per annum;

c. As against all the Defendants, an Order that the Defendants shall pay to the Bank all of its costs, charges, expenses and fees, including legal fees on a full indemnity basis; with post-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act.

3On October 21, 2025, Akazaki J. ordered the claim to proceed via a summary judgment motion, in writing.

4For the reasons that follow, I am granting judgment as sought.

5The following information is taken from the Statement of Claim. The Statement of Defence admits the information contained in paragraphs 6 through 13 below. The Statement of Defence does not admit the information contained in paragraphs 14 through 16. I address the Defendants’ position further in these reasons.

The Parties

6The Plaintiff is a Canadian chartered bank incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the Bank Act and carries on business, inter alia, in Toronto, Ontario.

7Navdurga Convenience Inc. operating as Village Variety (the “Company”) is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of Ontario with a registered or head office in Hamilton and was at all material times a borrower of the Bank.

8Kalpanaben is an individual who resides in Hamilton, Ontario, and was at all material times a director of the Company and a guarantor of its obligations to the Bank.

9Pooja is an individual who resides in Hannon, Ontario, and was at all material times a director of the Company and a guarantor of its obligations to the Bank.

10Hemant is an individual who resides in Hamilton, Ontario, and was at all material times a guarantor of its obligations to the Bank.

The Loan and the Guarantee

11Pursuant to a Loan Application and Agreement – Canada Small Business Financing Act executed January 23 and 24, 2023 (the “Loan Agreement”), the Bank granted the Company a non-revolving term loan in the amount of $300,000.00 with interest to accrue thereon at the Prime Rate plus 3.00% per annum (the “Loan”).

12As security for the Loan, the Guarantors executed and delivered to the Bank on or about January 25, 2023, their joint and several personal guarantees of the Company’s obligations to the Bank, limited to the amount of $75,000.00 with interest to accrue thereon at the Prime Rate plus 3.00% per annum from the date of demand (the "Guarantees”).

13As further security for the Bank granting the Loan to the Company, the Company executed and delivered to the Bank a General Security Agreement on or about January 23, 2023, which was duly registered in accordance with the provisions of the Personal Property Security Act, thereby granting the Bank a security interest in the Assets and entitling the Bank to immediate possession of the Assets upon default of the Company’s obligations to the Bank.

The Default

14In or about September 2023, the Company was in default of its obligations and covenants to the Bank with respect to the Loan.

15As at January 23, 2025, the Company was indebted to the Bank for $223,150.06 with respect to the Loan, inclusive of principal and interest, thereby exposing the Guarantors to their full guarantee obligations and entitling the Bank to immediate possession of the Assets.

16By letters dated January 24, 2025, the Bank, through its lawyers, made demands upon the Company and the Guarantors pursuant to their respective obligations to the Bank and enclosed therewith a Notice of Intention to Enforce Security pursuant to s. 244 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

THE ISSUES AND PARTY POSITIONS

17The issues are:

a. Is the matter suitable for summary judgment?

b. If the answer to (a) is yes, is the Plaintiff entitled to the relief it seeks?

18Bank of Montreal argues:

a. the Defendants have failed or refused to pay any amounts to the Bank and interest continues to accrue.

b. The Bank is entitled to judgment on the loan, to pre- and post-judgment interest on principal, and to costs.

19The Defendants, including Hemant Chaudhari, argue that:

a. “[I]f the Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is not admitted but denied, such damages were caused or contributed to by” the Defendants’ landlord who locked them out of their premises.

b. The Defendants have issued a Third Party Claim against their landlord seeking among other things to be indemnified for any amounts the Defendants may be found liable to pay the Bank.

c. If this court grants relief, it should order a stay of enforcement to permit the Defendants to advance the proceeding against their landlord.

ANALYSIS

20The following analysis contains my findings of fact on a balance of probabilities.

Is the matter appropriately decided via a summary judgment motion?

The Law

21Rule 20.04(2)(a) provides: “The court shall grant summary judgment if the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence”.

22Therefore, to obtain summary judgment in this case, the Plaintiff must first establish that there is no genuine issue for trial on enforcement of the loan and guarantees, and associated relief. The onus then shifts to the responding party, to prove that its claim has a real chance of success: Sanzone v. Schechter, 2016 ONCA 566, 402 DLR (4th) 135, at para. 30. The court must take a hard look at the evidence. While the onus is on the moving party to establish there is no issue requiring a trial, the responding party must “lead trump or risk losing”: 1061590 Ontario Ltd. v. Ontario Jockey Club, 1995 1686 (ON CA), 1995 CarswellOnt 63 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 36.

23There is no genuine issue requiring a trial, on a summary judgment motion, if the court can reach “a fair and just determination on the merits”: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87 at para. 49. Such a determination follows if the process (a) allows the court to make the necessary findings of fact, and to apply the law to the facts and (b) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.

24In determining whether there is a genuine issue for trial, a court may weigh the evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw reasonable inferences from that evidence: Rule 20.04 (2.1). The court can assume that the record contains all the evidence the parties would present if the matter proceeded to trial.

25The court should use its enhanced powers and decide a motion for summary judgment only where it leads to “a fair process and just adjudication”: Ang v. Lin, 2023 ONSC 4446, at para. 15, citing Mason v. Perras Mongenais, 2018 ONCA 978, at para. 44, and Eastwood Square Kitchener Inc. v. Value Village Stores, Inc., 2017 ONSC 832, at paras. 3-6 (and cases cited therein).

Application

26As the Court of Appeal has said, “…the summary judgement is tailor-made to enforce liquidated claims by creditors against debtors and guarantors”: 2275518 Ontario Inc. v The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343 at para 44.

27For the following reasons, I find this case suitable for summary judgment:

a. The Statement of Defence admits the loan and the guarantees.

b. The only Affidavit filed on behalf of the Defendants is from Hemant Chaudhari.

c. Mr. Chaudhari deposes that the landlord’s actions which locked the Defendants out of their business “significantly impaired the Company’s cashflow and the ability to service business obligations, including obligations relating to the CSBFA Loan.”

d. Mr. Chaudhari further claims that “the landlord’s conduct materially caused the shutdown and losses that precipitated the default circumstances relied upon by the Plaintiff [.]”

e. By necessary implication, Mr. Chaudhari admits the circumstances of the default.

f. The Defendants did not provide any evidence to contest:

i. The Bank’s claims that it sent demand letters dated January 24, 2025, and enclosed a Notice of Intention to Enforce Security pursuant to s. 244 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

ii. The Bank’s calculations of the principal and interest owing pursuant to the loan agreement and guarantees.

g. The Defendants’ primary argument is that it should be granted time to advance a third party claim against its landlord. The Defendant has not explained why a trial is needed to consider whether to grant that relief.

28Consequently, there is no genuine issue for trial.

If the answer to the first issue is yes, is the Plaintiff entitled to the relief it seeks?

The Law

29Under the Rules of Civil Procedure,” a plaintiff is not to be prejudiced or unnecessarily delayed by reason of a third party claim…”: r. 29.09.

30While it is possible for summary judgment to be stayed pending the resolution of a third party claim, this should only apply where “the issue involving the third party is somehow bound up with the main action, and where it would be inequitable to allow the plaintiff to enforce the judgment pending the resolution of that claim.”: Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Campbell, [2007] OJ No 3852 at para 25; see also Mitton v Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), 2025 ONSC 2645 at para 22.

31In Laurentian Bank, the plaintiff sued the defendant on a conditional sales contract relating to the defendant’s purchase of a trailer. The trailer was traded in, and as part of that transaction, the dealer agreed to discharge the loan to the plaintiff. The dealer then went bankrupt. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be stayed while the defendant pursued third party proceedings against the person who was allegedly failed to discharge the loan. Justice Gray rejected that argument as giving rise to a valid defence. The defendant’s dealings with the third party did not involve the plaintiff, and the defendant retained its obligation to discharge the loan. The third party’s role, and its possible breach of contract with the defendant, was not the plaintiff’s fault.

Application

32The Defendants have offered no evidence against the allegations in the Statement of Claim. Hemant Chaudhari acknowledges that the Defendants were “significantly impaired” in their “ability to service business obligations, including obligations related to the CSBFA Loan.”

33I appreciate that the Defendants believe their landlord created the current predicament. However, whatever the landlord did to the Defendants is not the Bank’s fault and, indeed, has nothing to do with it. The question is whether it is inequitable to permit the Plaintiff to realize on the loan it made to the Defendants. The Defendants bear the burden to prove an inequity. They have not done so. Therefore, I decline to stay any relief owing to the Plaintiff.

34Given the content of the Defendants’ materials, the Statement of Claim, and the evidence from the two affidavits of Christopher Zolumoff, dated November 14, 2025 and February 12, 2026, are uncontested. The Plaintiff has made out its case.

35Consequently, the Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the loss of bargain which means it is entitled to be placed in the same position it would have been in if the breaches had not occurred, or in other words as though the contract had been performed without any breaches.

Damages

36The Plaintiff is entitled to be repaid all outstanding amounts it loaned to the Defendants.

Interest

37The Plaintiff claims prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of the Bank’s prime rate of interest, plus 3% per annum. Generally, courts should give effect to interest rates contained in an agreement unless the terms are vague, unclear or infringe a statutory provision such as the Interest Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1-15: Capital One Bank v. Matovska; Capital One Bank v. Blackwell; Capital One Bank v. Semple, 2007 37015, at para. 13 and Gyimah v. Bank of Nova Scotia,2013 ONCA 252, at para. 10. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is appropriate and fair to use a contractual interest rate to which the parties have agreed: Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co., 2002 SCC 43, at paras.49-50, Professional Court Reporters Inc. v. Pistachio Financier Corp., 2022 ONCA 669.

38The Plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgement interest as sought.

39The post judgment interest rate on the outstanding loan and guarantee amounts is the Prime Rate plus 3% per annum.

Costs

40The Plaintiff is entitled to costs. The Plaintiff incurred costs of $22,541.38. I have reviewed the bill of costs, and find the work and rates therein reasonable.

41The Defendants did not offer a defence relevant to the issue of summary judgment. The Defendants did not prepare a statement of fact and law.

42As a result, this motion was unnecessary, and full costs are appropriate, fair, and within the reasonable contemplation of the Defendants.

43The post-judgment interest rate on costs is 4.00% per annum.

ORDER

44In conclusion, I make the following order:

a. The motion for summary judgment is granted. For clarity:

i. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff the amounts set forth in the Draft order and reproduced in paragraph 2 of these reasons, with pre and post-judgment interest accruing at the Prime Rate plus 3.00% per annum.

ii. The Defendants shall pay costs to the Plaintiff fixed at $22,541.38 with post-judgment interest fixed at 4.00% per annum.

b. Within 7 days, the Plaintiff may extract and submit for my signature the Order contained in the Supplementary Motion Record.

Mathen J.

Released: May 4, 2026