Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Bonhomme

Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Bonhomme

The agreement was ambiguous on its face as to whether 'the Customer' referred to one or both signatories; that ambiguity could only be resolved with extrinsic evidence, so summary judgment was inappropriate and the motion judge's order was set aside and the motion dismissed.

Citation
2012 ONCA 515
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Laurentian Bank of Canada; Defendant (appellant): Jean-Claude Bonhomme
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (collection) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion in Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal allowed; motion judge's summary judgment order set aside; motion for summary judgment dismissed; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Line of Credit, Contract Interpretation, Ambiguity, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Contract Banking Procedure Summary Judgment Line of Credit Contract Interpretation Ambiguity +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

Laurentian Bank of Canada

Plaintiff (respondent)

Jean-Claude Bonhomme

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (collection) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion in Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase 'the Customer' in the line of credit agreement unambiguously permitted advances on the signature of one signatory
  2. 2 Whether the bank breached the agreement by making advances without authorization of both signatories
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the alleged ambiguity and need for extrinsic evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement was ambiguous on its face as to whether 'the Customer' referred to one or both signatories; that ambiguity could only be resolved with extrinsic evidence, so summary judgment was inappropriate and the motion judge's order was set aside and the motion dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; motion judge's summary judgment order set aside; motion for summary judgment dismissed; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Set aside the motion judge's order granting summary judgment to the respondent
  • Dismissed the respondent's motion for summary judgment