Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Bernier

Laurentian Bank of Canada v. Bernier

The motion judge correctly applied the Mehedi test; the appellant failed to provide expert or other admissible evidence of forgery, failed to adequately explain significant delay, and the respondent would be prejudiced by setting aside the judgment; accordingly the motion to set aside and the fresh evidence application were properly dismissed and the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion.

Citation
2018 ONCA 23
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): The Laurentian Bank of Canada; Defendant (appellant): Mary A. Bernier; Defendant (appellant): Frank J. Bernier
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Collection / Appeal From Order Dismissing Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment (heard in Divisional Court by Appointment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; fresh evidence application dismissed; motion to set aside summary judgment dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Fresh Evidence, Forgery, Costs, Enforcement, Examination for Discovery
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Debt Collection Evidence Summary Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Fresh Evidence Forgery +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Laurentian Bank of Canada

Plaintiff (respondent)

Mary A. Bernier

Defendant (appellant)

Frank J. Bernier

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Collection / Appeal From Order Dismissing Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment (heard in Divisional Court by Appointment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing to set aside the summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's allegation of forgery was sufficiently supported
  3. 3 Whether the fresh evidence should be admitted

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge correctly applied the Mehedi test; the appellant failed to provide expert or other admissible evidence of forgery, failed to adequately explain significant delay, and the respondent would be prejudiced by setting aside the judgment; accordingly the motion to set aside and the fresh evidence application were properly dismissed and the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; fresh evidence application dismissed; motion to set aside summary judgment dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Fresh evidence application dismissed
  • Appeal dismissed