Vic Rampersad

The plaintiff bank commenced a collection action for less than $19,000 in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto against a self-represented defendant residing in Elliott Lake.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the proceeding as an abuse of process, arguing it was oppressive to force him to litigate a small claim in Toronto.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct was not vexatious or an abuse of process, but exercised its inherent jurisdiction to transfer the matter to the Small Claims Court in Elliott Lake, noting that claims within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court should ordinarily be litigated there.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment motion in favour of the respondent bank for recovery of $58,126.03 on an outstanding line of credit account.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the motion judge relied on a 1988 line of credit agreement when the statement of claim referenced a 1994 agreement; (2) the respondent's affiant relied on hearsay evidence and failed to provide proper notice of business records; and (3) the motion judge failed to provide reasons for awarding post-judgment interest at a rate higher than the statutory rate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the summary judgment.