Royal Bank of Canada v. Ibrahim

Royal Bank of Canada v. Ibrahim

The appeal is dismissed because the respondent established indebtedness under the identified account number by producing the executed 1988 line of credit agreement and supporting business records; the affidavit and records were served in sufficient time to satisfy procedural notice requirements and substantiate the account, and the motion judge properly exercised his discretion under s.130 CJA to apply the contractual rate of interest with adequate reasons.

Citation
2017 ONCA 330
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Royal Bank of Canada; Defendant (appellant): Nuzhat Ibrahim aka Nuzhat Salam Ibrahim
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Business Records, Affidavit Evidence, Post Judgment Interest, Contract Interpretation, Line of Credit
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Debt Collection Evidence Interest Law Summary Judgment Business Records Affidavit Evidence +3 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Bank of Canada

Plaintiff (respondent)

Nuzhat Ibrahim aka Nuzhat Salam Ibrahim

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in relying on a 1988 line of credit agreement when the statement of claim referred to a 1994 agreement (variance between pleaded document and evidence)
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's affidavit was inadmissible or insufficient because the affiant relied on "information of others" and appended business records without seven days' notice under s.35(3) of the Evidence Act
  3. 3 Whether the motion judge failed to provide adequate reasons for awarding post-judgment interest at a rate higher than the rate provided in the Courts of Justice Act and whether that exercise of discretion was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the respondent established indebtedness under the identified account number by producing the executed 1988 line of credit agreement and supporting business records; the affidavit and records were served in sufficient time to satisfy procedural notice requirements and substantiate the account, and the motion judge properly exercised his discretion under s.130 CJA to apply the contractual rate of interest with adequate reasons.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment requiring appellant to pay respondent $58,126.03 on outstanding RBC line of credit account number 55438782-001
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent in the amount of $6,000 including disbursements and HST, payable within 90 days