2148251 Ontario Incorporated v. Catan Canada Incorporated

2148251 Ontario Incorporated v. Catan Canada Incorporated

The promissory note's express terms gave the payee a discretionary right to demand repayment on default but did not obligate the payee to accelerate; therefore the limitation period did not begin to run at the first missed interest payment and could not be said to have commenced before maturity (or demand after...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 ONCA 57
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): 2148251 Ontario Incorporated; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim (appellant): Catan Canada Incorporated; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim (appellant): Leanne Duscio; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent): 2148251 Ontario Incorporated; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent): Calum Waddell; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent): Leslie Waddell carrying on business as Keystone Settlements International
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Collection (promissory Note Enforcement) / Appeal From Summary Judgment (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; summary judgment below affirmed.
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Guarantee, Limitation Period, Parol Evidence Rule, Summary Judgment
Source Language
english
Civil Contract Law Collections Evidence Limitation Periods Promissory Note Guarantee Limitation Period +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

2148251 Ontario Incorporated

Plaintiff (respondent)

Catan Canada Incorporated

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim (appellant)

Leanne Duscio

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim (appellant)

2148251 Ontario Incorporated

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent)

Calum Waddell

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent)

Leslie Waddell carrying on business as Keystone Settlements International

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Collection (promissory Note Enforcement) / Appeal From Summary Judgment (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the promissory note was a demand obligation or payable on a fixed maturity date
  2. 2 When the limitation period began to run in respect of the promissory note claim
  3. 3 Whether parol evidence could be admitted to convert the loan into an advance on profits

Ratio Decidendi

The promissory note's express terms gave the payee a discretionary right to demand repayment on default but did not obligate the payee to accelerate; therefore the limitation period did not begin to run at the first missed interest payment and could not be said to have commenced before maturity (or demand after maturity); parol evidence could not be admitted to convert the loan into an advance on profits, so summary judgment for the payee was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; summary judgment below affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed