Entry Point Investments v. Invis Inc.

Entry Point Investments v. Invis Inc.

The motions judge's factual findings that no guarantee was given were reasonable and entitled to deference; in any event an oral guarantee would be unenforceable under s.4 of the Statute of Frauds, so the dismissal of the appellant's claim and the granting of the respondents' cross-motion for summary judgment were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2015 ONCA 701
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Anthony Gyimah trading as Entry Point Investments; Respondent (defendant): Invis Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Ricky Singh; Respondent (defendant): Poorna Jayasena; Respondent (defendant): Kviwinder Sohi; Respondent (defendant): Jasvinder Sohi; Respondent (defendant): Naomi Edwards; Respondent (defendant): Ranjit Dullay; Respondent (defendant): Domenic Reda
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Motions Judge Decision on Summary Judgment and Cross Motion
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Guarantee, Statute of Frauds S.4, Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Contract Law Real Estate Law Statute of Frauds Summary Judgment Guarantee Statute of Frauds S.4 Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Gyimah trading as Entry Point Investments

Appellant (plaintiff)

Invis Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Ricky Singh

Respondent (defendant)

Poorna Jayasena

Respondent (defendant)

Kviwinder Sohi

Respondent (defendant)

Jasvinder Sohi

Respondent (defendant)

Naomi Edwards

Respondent (defendant)

Ranjit Dullay

Respondent (defendant)

Domenic Reda

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Motions Judge Decision on Summary Judgment and Cross Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents guaranteed the $30,000 loan
  2. 2 Whether an alleged oral guarantee is enforceable under s.4 of the Statute of Frauds
  3. 3 Whether the motions judge erred in weighing evidence and drawing inferences on summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The motions judge's factual findings that no guarantee was given were reasonable and entitled to deference; in any event an oral guarantee would be unenforceable under s.4 of the Statute of Frauds, so the dismissal of the appellant's claim and the granting of the respondents' cross-motion for summary judgment were correct; the appeal is dismissed and the costs award is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents fixed at 6400.00 CAD, all inclusive.
  • Cross‑motion below granting summary judgment dismissing the action against the respondents was upheld.