Gyimah v. Bank of Nova Scotia

Gyimah v. Bank of Nova Scotia

The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action and granting the defendants' counterclaim because the Bank was contractually entitled to demand repayment and cancel the facilities based on credible information; however, the trial judge erred by applying statutory pre-judgment interest rather than the contractual rate of 7.5%, so the judgment was varied to award pre-judgment interest at 7.5% and costs were awarded to the Bank as substantial indemnity fixed at $10,342.91.

Citation
2013 ONCA 252
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Anthony Gyimah; Defendant (respondent): The Bank of Nova Scotia; Defendant (respondent): Scotialine Visa; Defendant (respondent): Mike Mckeil; Defendant (respondent): Avin Sharma
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment Following Motion (summary Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in main action and counterclaim; cross-appeal allowed on pre-judgment interest rate; cross-appeal on costs leave denied
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Pre Judgment Interest, Termination of Loan Facilities, Costs, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Debt Collection Remedies Summary Judgment Pre Judgment Interest Termination of Loan Facilities +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Gyimah

Plaintiff (appellant)

The Bank of Nova Scotia

Defendant (respondent)

Scotialine Visa

Defendant (respondent)

Mike Mckeil

Defendant (respondent)

Avin Sharma

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment Following Motion (summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a genuine issue for trial on damages for mental and emotional distress, financial hardship and damage to credit rating
  2. 2 Whether the Bank was entitled under the loan facilities contracts to demand payment and cancel the facilities
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriately granted on the action and counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action and granting the defendants' counterclaim because the Bank was contractually entitled to demand repayment and cancel the facilities based on credible information; however, the trial judge erred by applying statutory pre-judgment interest rather than the contractual rate of 7.5%, so the judgment was varied to award pre-judgment interest at 7.5% and costs were awarded to the Bank as substantial indemnity fixed at $10,342.91.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in main action and counterclaim; cross-appeal allowed on pre-judgment interest rate; cross-appeal on costs leave denied

Orders

  • Dismiss the appellant's action and grant the defendants' counterclaim in the amount found by the courts below
  • Vary the judgment below to provide for pre-judgment interest at the contractual rate of 7.5% per annum