Royal Bank of Canada v. Puzzolanti

Royal Bank of Canada v. Puzzolanti

The motion judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing a last‑minute adjournment where the appellant had ample notice of the hearing, the adjournment request was made at the eleventh hour contrary to summary judgment principles and the practice direction, and the record disclosed no tenable defence; accordingly summary judgment and the order for repayment were correctly granted.

Citation
2018 ONCA 917
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Royal Bank of Canada; Defendant (appellant): Michael Puzzolanti
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Adjournment, Forged Cheque, Motion Practice
Source Language
English
Civil Banking Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Adjournment Forged Cheque Motion Practice

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Bank of Canada

Plaintiff (respondent)

Michael Puzzolanti

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing to grant an adjournment of the summary judgment motion
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was properly granted in respect of repayment of funds deposited from a forged cheque

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing a last‑minute adjournment where the appellant had ample notice of the hearing, the adjournment request was made at the eleventh hour contrary to summary judgment principles and the practice direction, and the record disclosed no tenable defence; accordingly summary judgment and the order for repayment were correctly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order affirming summary judgment requiring appellant to repay respondent $337,653.67