Great America Leasing Corporation v. Yates

Great America Leasing Corporation v. Yates

The appeal was dismissed because the Michigan judgment was entitled to comity and enforcement in Ontario and the appellant failed to meet the evidentiary burden on a Rule 20 motion to raise a genuine issue that the lease agreement contravened s.347 or was unconscionable; accordingly there was no basis to refuse recognition on public policy grounds.

Citation
C40052
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Great America Leasing Corporation; Defendant (appellant): John Yates
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Motion for Summary Judgment to Enforce Foreign (michigan) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Public Policy Exception to Recognition, Usury/criminal Rate of Interest (criminal Code S.347), Summary Judgment (rule 20), Unconscionable Transactions
Source Language
English
Conflict of Laws Civil Procedure Contract Law Criminal Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Public Policy Exception to Recognition Usury/criminal Rate of Interest (criminal Code S.347) Summary Judgment (rule 20) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great America Leasing Corporation

Plaintiff (respondent)

John Yates

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Motion for Summary Judgment to Enforce Foreign (michigan) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Ontario court should enforce a foreign (Michigan) judgment against an Ontario resident
  2. 2 Whether enforcement would be contrary to Ontario public policy because the underlying lease imposes a criminal rate of interest contrary to s.347 of the Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the appellant met the evidentiary burden to raise a genuine issue for trial under Rule 20

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Michigan judgment was entitled to comity and enforcement in Ontario and the appellant failed to meet the evidentiary burden on a Rule 20 motion to raise a genuine issue that the lease agreement contravened s.347 or was unconscionable; accordingly there was no basis to refuse recognition on public policy grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the motions judge enforcing the Michigan judgment in Ontario upheld
  • Costs fixed at $9000 inclusive of disbursements and GST