Gutierrez v. Tropic International Limited

Gutierrez v. Tropic International Limited

The Court dismissed the appeal because the alleged oral collateral agreement contradicted clear, integrated written documents (Redemption Agreement, Note and unconditional Guarantee), so it could not create a genuine issue for trial, and the alleged conduct and claimed equitable set-off were contractually and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C37063
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Luis Arturo Gutierrez; Defendant/appellant: Tropic International Limited; Defendant/appellant: Xela Enterprises Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment of Justice E. Macdonald affirmed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Parol Evidence Rule, Integration Clause, Acceleration Clause, Equitable Set Off, Guarantee Liability, Costs
Source Language
english
Contract Law Civil Procedure Equity Guarantee Law Conflict of Laws Summary Judgment Parol Evidence Rule Integration Clause +4 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luis Arturo Gutierrez

Plaintiff/respondent

Tropic International Limited

Defendant/appellant

Xela Enterprises Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged oral collateral agreement creates a genuine issue for trial notwithstanding clear integrated written agreements
  2. 2 Whether respondent's conduct re foreign litigation defeats his claim or gives rise to equitable set-off
  3. 3 Whether the motions judge exceeded her role on summary judgment by assessing credibility or weighing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal because the alleged oral collateral agreement contradicted clear, integrated written documents (Redemption Agreement, Note and unconditional Guarantee), so it could not create a genuine issue for trial, and the alleged conduct and claimed equitable set-off were contractually and equitably insufficient to defeat summary judgment; the motions judge did not exceed her role.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment of Justice E. Macdonald affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summary judgment ordering payment to respondent affirmed (Cdn $3,489,020 and US $1,061,774.36 inclusive of pre-judgment interest)