Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hylton

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hylton

Fresh evidence was admissible because the appellant's self-representation and undisputed serious personal circumstances demonstrated a lack of prejudice in admitting the evidence and the new material, if believed, could reasonably have affected the motion judge's determination that no genuine issue existed; furthermore, the motion judge erred in refusing the adjournment by failing to consider relevant factors, so parts of the summary judgment were set aside and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

Citation
2010 ONCA 752
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): The Toronto-Dominion Bank; Defendant (appellant): Paul Hylton also known as Paul U Hylton
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Collection (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment (court of Appeal for Ontario)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; terms 1 and 2 of the summary judgment set aside and matter remitted to the Superior Court for further proceedings without prejudice to the Bank's right to proceed with its motion; fresh evidence admitted; costs of appeal fixed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Adjournment, Fresh Evidence, Self Represented Litigant, Debt Recovery, Credit Agreements, Third Party Claim, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Commercial Law Procedural Law Evidence Summary Judgment Adjournment Fresh Evidence Self Represented Litigant +4 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Toronto-Dominion Bank

Plaintiff (respondent)

Paul Hylton also known as Paul U Hylton

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Collection (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment (court of Appeal for Ontario)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal
  2. 2 Whether motion judge erred in refusing adjournment
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given disputed factual issues about borrower identity and liability

Ratio Decidendi

Fresh evidence was admissible because the appellant's self-representation and undisputed serious personal circumstances demonstrated a lack of prejudice in admitting the evidence and the new material, if believed, could reasonably have affected the motion judge's determination that no genuine issue existed; furthermore, the motion judge erred in refusing the adjournment by failing to consider relevant factors, so parts of the summary judgment were set aside and the matter remitted for further proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; terms 1 and 2 of the summary judgment set aside and matter remitted to the Superior Court for further proceedings without prejudice to the Bank's right to proceed with its motion; fresh evidence admitted; costs of appeal fixed.

Orders

  • Admit proposed fresh evidence filed by the appellant on appeal and consider the appeal in light of that evidence
  • Set aside terms 1 and 2 of the Superior Court judgment dated December 4, 2009