Concentra Financial Services Association v. Rawling

Concentra Financial Services Association v. Rawling

The motions judge properly exercised discretion under Rule 20.02 and correctly granted summary judgment because there was no genuine issue for trial and the appellant, as an active participant in the fraudulent purchase scheme, cannot avoid the enforceability of the mortgage or assert the underlying fraud as a defence.

Citation
2017 ONCA 348
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Concentra Financial Services Association; Defendant (appellant): Kenneth Rawling
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (court of Appeal of Ontario)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for respondent affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Enforceability of Mortgage, Imputation of Lawyer's Knowledge, Disclosure Obligations and Sanctions, Counterclaim for Refund
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Real Property Mortgage Law Fraud Summary Judgment Enforceability of Mortgage Imputation of Lawyer's Knowledge Disclosure Obligations and Sanctions +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Concentra Financial Services Association

Plaintiff (respondent)

Kenneth Rawling

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (court of Appeal of Ontario)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motions judge erred in declining to draw an adverse inference or impose sanctions under Rule 20.02 for alleged disclosure failures
  2. 2 Whether a mortgage founded on a fraudulent agreement of purchase and sale is unenforceable against a participant in the fraud
  3. 3 Whether the lawyer Gertner's knowledge can be imputed to the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The motions judge properly exercised discretion under Rule 20.02 and correctly granted summary judgment because there was no genuine issue for trial and the appellant, as an active participant in the fraudulent purchase scheme, cannot avoid the enforceability of the mortgage or assert the underlying fraud as a defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for respondent affirmed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the respondent affirmed
  • Appeal dismissed