374787 B.C. v. Dion

374787 B.C. v. Dion

The appeal was dismissed because the chambers judge's factual finding that the shares were received as security and not payment in full was open on the affidavit material, and the appellants forfeited the contention that Rule 18A was inappropriate by failing to apply for cross-examination below.

Citation
2002 BCCA 297
Parties
Respondent / Plaintiff: 374787 B.C. Ltd.; Appellant / Defendant: Louis Dion; Appellant / Defendant: Karen Heiss
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/debt / Appeal From Chambers Judgment on a Rule 18 a Summary Judgment Motion
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Rule 18 a Summary Judgment, Settlement Vs Security for Debt, Credibility and Cross Examination, Deference to Findings on Affidavits
Source Language
English
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Appellate Practice Promissory Note Rule 18 a Summary Judgment Settlement Vs Security for Debt Credibility and Cross Examination +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

374787 B.C. Ltd.

Respondent / Plaintiff

Louis Dion

Appellant / Defendant

Karen Heiss

Appellant / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/debt / Appeal From Chambers Judgment on a Rule 18 a Summary Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transfer of shares constituted full satisfaction of the $45,000 debt or was security for the debt
  2. 2 Whether Rule 18A summary judgment was appropriate given alleged credibility issues
  3. 3 Whether appellate court should overturn the chambers judge's factual findings based on affidavit evidence without cross-examination below

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the chambers judge's factual finding that the shares were received as security and not payment in full was open on the affidavit material, and the appellants forfeited the contention that Rule 18A was inappropriate by failing to apply for cross-examination below.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed