John Deere Financial Inc. v. 1232291 Ontario Inc. (Northern HaulContracting)

John Deere Financial Inc. v. 1232291 Ontario Inc. (Northern HaulContracting)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge: the respondent was the assignee based on the record and corroborating facts, the affidavit evidence sufficiently established the amount owing such that no genuine issue required trial, the explicit exclusion clauses applied and were not unconscionable or contrary to public policy, the counterclaim did not raise issues that would produce inconsistent verdicts, and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's cross-appeal of the interlocutory stay; appeal dismissed and cross-appeal quashed.

Citation
2016 ONCA 838
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): John Deere Financial Inc.; Defendant (appellant): 1232291 Ontario Inc. o/a Northern Haul Contracting; Defendant (appellant): Ryan Bignucolo; Defendant (appellant): Richard Bignucolo; Defendant (appellant): Lucia Bignucolo; Defendant (appellant): Bignucolo Incorporated; Defendant (appellant): Chapleau Village Shops Inc.; Defendant (appellant): 1039442 Ontario Inc.; Defendant (appellant): 1558738 Ontario Inc.; Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: 1232291 Ontario Inc. o/a Northern Haul Contracting; Ryan Bignucolo; Richard Bignucolo; Lucia Bignucolo; Bignucolo Incorporated; Chapleau Village Shops Inc.; 1039442 Ontario Inc.; 1558738 Ontario Inc.; Defendant by Counterclaim: Eacom Timber Corporation; Defendant by Counterclaim: Nortrax Canada Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal of Summary Judgment Decision at Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; respondent's cross-appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent in agreed sum.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Assignment of Contracts, Exclusion Clause, Unconscionability, Set Off, Counterclaim, Stay of Execution, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Civil Contract Commercial Law Civil Procedure Appeal Summary Judgment Assignment of Contracts Exclusion Clause +5 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Deere Financial Inc.

Plaintiff (respondent)

1232291 Ontario Inc. o/a Northern Haul Contracting

Defendant (appellant)

Ryan Bignucolo

Defendant (appellant)

Richard Bignucolo

Defendant (appellant)

Lucia Bignucolo

Defendant (appellant)

Bignucolo Incorporated

Defendant (appellant)

Chapleau Village Shops Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

1039442 Ontario Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

1558738 Ontario Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

1232291 Ontario Inc. o/a Northern Haul Contracting; Ryan Bignucolo; Richard Bignucolo; Lucia Bignucolo; Bignucolo Incorporated; Chapleau Village Shops Inc.; 1039442 Ontario Inc.; 1558738 Ontario Inc.

Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Eacom Timber Corporation

Defendant by Counterclaim

Nortrax Canada Inc.

Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal of Summary Judgment Decision at Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent was valid assignee of the leases and had capacity to sue
  2. 2 Whether the amount owing calculation raised a genuine issue for trial
  3. 3 Whether broad exclusion clauses barred lessee's defences and whether those clauses were unconscionable or contrary to public policy (Tercon)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge: the respondent was the assignee based on the record and corroborating facts, the affidavit evidence sufficiently established the amount owing such that no genuine issue required trial, the explicit exclusion clauses applied and were not unconscionable or contrary to public policy, the counterclaim did not raise issues that would produce inconsistent verdicts, and the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's cross-appeal of the interlocutory stay; appeal dismissed and cross-appeal quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; respondent's cross-appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded to respondent in agreed sum.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction