Ublansky v. Barranca

Ublansky v. Barranca

The motions judge correctly concluded there was no genuine issue for trial because the defendants failed to produce supporting evidence for their forgery allegation and thus the court was entitled to draw adverse inferences from refusals to provide handwriting samples or to pursue cross-examination; therefore summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff was appropriate.

Citation
C28642
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Jerome Samuel Ublansky; Defendant/appellant: Carlo Barranca; Defendant/appellant: Joseph Barranca; Defendant/appellant: Salvatore Romeo; Defendant/appellant: Rocco Fuda; Defendant/appellant: Antonio DeMaria
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Motion for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Forgery Allegation, Handwriting Expert Evidence, Adverse Inference, Mortgage
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Property Law Contract Law Summary Judgment Forgery Allegation Handwriting Expert Evidence Adverse Inference +1 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

Jerome Samuel Ublansky

Plaintiff/respondent

Carlo Barranca

Defendant/appellant

Joseph Barranca

Defendant/appellant

Salvatore Romeo

Defendant/appellant

Rocco Fuda

Defendant/appellant

Antonio DeMaria

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Motion for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged 1989 mortgage was forged and thus whether a genuine issue for trial existed
  2. 2 Whether the defendants discharged the obligation to produce evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial
  3. 3 Whether an adverse inference was available from refusal to provide handwriting samples or to be cross-examined

Ratio Decidendi

The motions judge correctly concluded there was no genuine issue for trial because the defendants failed to produce supporting evidence for their forgery allegation and thus the court was entitled to draw adverse inferences from refusals to provide handwriting samples or to pursue cross-examination; therefore summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Summary judgment for the plaintiff upheld.