Steven D. Benmor

The respondent obtained summary judgment against the appellants for an alleged loan under the simplified rules.

The appellants appealed, arguing that the statement of claim only pleaded a single loan of $22,750 (U.S.), which they claimed to have repaid, rather than a revolving line of credit as found by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment, finding that the trial judge erred by granting judgment based on a revolving line of credit that was not properly pleaded in the statement of claim.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The parties signed a settlement agreement, which the applicant later disputed.

The insurer argued the agreement was a full and final release of all claims.

The arbitrator found that while the parties had reached an agreement, the disclosure statement provided by the insurer failed to comply with section 9.1(2) of the Settlement Regulation because it omitted the commuted value of future benefits.

As a result, the applicant was entitled to rescind the settlement under section 9.1(4) and proceed to arbitration.