1161267 Ontario Ltd. v. Mei

1161267 Ontario Ltd. v. Mei

The Court upheld the motion judge's grant of summary judgment because the written agreement and the security unambiguously established the defendants' guarantee of the debt, there was no genuine issue requiring viva voce evidence or credibility findings, and the motion judge properly considered the evidence in interpreting the contract.

Citation
2016 ONCA 881
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): 1161267 Ontario Ltd.; Defendant (appellant): Peter Michael Mei; Defendant (appellant): Dina Mei; Defendant (appellant): Mancuso Motor Car Company Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment (collection Action) / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment Motion
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Contract Interpretation, Security Agreement, Guarantee, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Contract Mortgage Collection Appeal Summary Judgment Contract Interpretation Security Agreement +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1161267 Ontario Ltd.

Plaintiff (respondent)

Peter Michael Mei

Defendant (appellant)

Dina Mei

Defendant (appellant)

Mancuso Motor Car Company Ltd.

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment (collection Action) / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment based on the written agreement and affidavits
  2. 2 Whether ambiguities in the agreement required viva voce evidence and credibility findings at trial
  3. 3 Whether the defendants intended to guarantee the principal amount and whether the security granted effected that guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the motion judge's grant of summary judgment because the written agreement and the security unambiguously established the defendants' guarantee of the debt, there was no genuine issue requiring viva voce evidence or credibility findings, and the motion judge properly considered the evidence in interpreting the contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs on the substantial indemnity basis in accordance with the mortgage terms and the motion judge's decision on costs
  • Costs awarded in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST