Equitable Bank c. Bitchoka
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 232
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 30 March 2026
- Posture
- Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion
- Language
- French
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 30 March 2026
- Posture
- Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion
- Language
- French
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Appeal dismissed because appellant was in contractual default, Equitable Bank had the contractual right to take possession and to recover the outstanding principal and interest, required notices were given, the government policy document relied on by appellant is not law and cannot displace the contract, and there was no genuine dispute of fact so summary judgment was proper.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Possession of the property granted to Equitable Bank.
- Appellant ordered to pay Equitable Bank $659,029.88.
- Costs awarded to Equitable Bank in the amount of $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.
02
Material facts
Parties
Equitable Bank
Respondent Counsel: Andrew J.F. Lenz; Mira NemrJean Bernard Bitchoka
Appellant Counsel: self-representedAmounts and remedies
- Amount Ordered Payable to Respondent: CAD 659,029.88
- Costs Awarded to Respondent: CAD 12,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether summary judgment was appropriate
- 02
Whether the appellant's reliance on the so‑called Canadian Mortgage Charter prevents enforcement of the mortgage
- 03
Whether Equitable Bank complied with contract and notice requirements to take possession
- 04
Whether the appellant was in default and liable for the claimed amount
- 05
Appropriate award of costs
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued the judgment conflicts with the 'Charte hypothécaire canadienne' (a government policy document) and that the matter should not have been decided by summary judgment.
- Respondent
- Respondent submitted appellant was in default, the contract permitted possession on default, required notices were given, there was no conflict in the evidence and summary judgment was appropriate; the government policy document has no force of law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
2023 Fall Economic Statement (Government of Canada) as characterized by the Superior Court judgment
Non‑statutory government policy documents do not have the force of law and cannot alter contractual rights.
- 02
Superior Court judgment by Kaufman J.; affirmed by Ontario Court of Appeal
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine conflict in the evidence and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (including enforcement of contractual mortgage rights on default).
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Appeal dismissed because appellant was in contractual default, Equitable Bank had the contractual right to take possession and to recover the outstanding principal and interest, required notices were given, the government policy document relied on by appellant is not law and cannot displace the contract, and there was no genuine dispute of fact so summary judgment was proper.
Obiter and limits
- The 'Charte hypothécaire canadienne' referenced by the appellant is part of the 2023 Fall Economic Statement and does not have legal force.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed.
- Possession of the property granted to Equitable Bank.
- Appellant ordered to pay Equitable Bank $659,029.88.
- Costs awarded to Equitable Bank in the amount of $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 30 March 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 30 March 2026
Equitable Bank c. Bitchoka Collection Décisions de la Cour d'appel Date 2026-03-30 Référence neutre 2026 ONCA 232 Numéros de dossier COA-25-CV-0782 Juges Rouleau, Paul S.; Thorburn, Julie; Favreau, Lise G. Sujet Civil Contenu de la décision COUR D’APPEL DE L’ONTARIO RÉFÉRENCE: Equitable Bank c. Bitchoka, 2026 ONCA 232 DATE : 20260330 DOSSIER : COA-25-CV-0782 Les juges Rouleau, Thorburn et Favreau
ENTRE Equitable Bank Demandeur (Intimé) et Jean Bernard Bitchoka Défendeur (Appelant) Jean Bernard Bitchoka, en personne Andrew J.F. Lenz et Mira Nemr, pour l’intimé Entendu et rendu oralement : 23 mars 2026 Appel du jugement rendu par le juge Alexandre Kaufman de la Cour supérieure de justice le 15 mai 2025.
MOTIFS [1] L’appelant, Jean-Bernard Bitchoka, interjette appel d’un jugement rendu suite à une motion pour jugement sommaire. Le jugement accorde à l’intimé, Equitable Bank, la possession de la résidence de M. Bitchoka et ordonne à ce dernier de payer 659 029,88 $ à Equitable Bank. [2] Il n’y a aucun mérite à l’appel de M. Bitchoka. Le juge saisi de la motion a adressé les arguments de M. Bitchoka, y inclut son argument que le jugement va à l’encontre de la Charte hypothécaire canadienne. Comme l’a observé le juge saisi de la motion, ce document faisait partie de l’Énoncé économique de l’automne de 2023 du gouvernement fédéral, Ottawa, Ministère des Finances, 2023. Il n’a pas la force d’une loi et ne supplante pas les termes du contrat entre M. Bitchoka et Equitable Bank. [3] Il n’y a aussi aucun mérite à la position de M. Bitchoka que le juge saisi de la motion n’aurait pas dû décider cette affaire par jugement sommaire. Il n’y avait aucun conflit dans la preuve. M. Bitchoka reconnait qu’il n’a pas payé les montants mensuels dus à Equitable Bank, même après des ajustements aux montants et une prolongation d’échéance pour paiement. Il était donc en défaut. Le contrat entre les parties permet à Equitable Bank de prendre possession de la propriété s’il y a défaut de paiement. Equitable Bank a donné les avis requis. Le juge saisi de la motion n’a commis aucune erreur en rendant sa décision par jugement sommaire. [4] L’appel est rejeté. Les dépens sont accordés à l’intimé au montant de 12 000 $, débours et taxes compris. « Paul Rouleau j.c.a. » « Thorburn j.c.a. » « L. Favreau j.c.a. »
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.