Business Development Bank of Canada v. 1626012 Ontario Inc. (ArtisticLeather Living)

Business Development Bank of Canada v. 1626012 Ontario Inc. (ArtisticLeather Living)

The appeal is dismissed because the documentary record and the parties' contractual requirement of written consent for loan changes established that the motion judge properly granted summary judgment; the Combined Air test was satisfied and no adverse inference was warranted given the appropriateness of the respondent's affiant.

Citation
2012 ONCA 56
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Business Development Bank of Canada; Defendant (appellant): 1626012 Ontario Inc. (operating as Artistic Leather Living); Defendant (appellant): Jatiner Gohal (also known as Jim Gohal)
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Collection Civil Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment (decision Heard Jan 20, 2012; Lower Judgment April 13, 2011)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Documentary Evidence, Adverse Inference, Contractual Consent for Loan Modification, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Collection Civil Procedure Appeal Summary Judgment Documentary Evidence Adverse Inference Contractual Consent for Loan Modification +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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Business Development Bank of Canada

Plaintiff (respondent)

1626012 Ontario Inc. (operating as Artistic Leather Living)

Defendant (appellant)

Jatiner Gohal (also known as Jim Gohal)

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Collection Civil Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment (decision Heard Jan 20, 2012; Lower Judgment April 13, 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the documentary record
  2. 2 Whether the Combined Air test for summary judgment was met
  3. 3 Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the respondent for providing only one affiant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the documentary record and the parties' contractual requirement of written consent for loan changes established that the motion judge properly granted summary judgment; the Combined Air test was satisfied and no adverse inference was warranted given the appropriateness of the respondent's affiant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes