A casino operator sought summary judgment against an Ontario resident for unpaid gambling credit advanced through casino markers.
The defendant argued Ontario was not the appropriate forum and claimed he did not remember signing the credit documents due to intoxication.
The court held Ontario had jurisdiction because the defendant resided and held assets in Ontario and had attorned to the jurisdiction through his pleadings.
Applying Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the documentary evidence, dishonoured cheques, and post‑transaction communications acknowledging the debt.
Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding balance plus contractual interest.
