Bank of Montreal v. Cadogan

Bank of Montreal v. Cadogan

The motion judge did not err: he reasonably refused an adjournment based on a pattern of delay and inadequate proof, found the respondent's evidence credible and the appellant's explanations inconsistent, concluded the appellant knowingly made a false law statement on the electronic registry, and properly granted summary judgment including compensatory and punitive damages; the appellate court declined to interfere.

Citation
2021 ONCA 405
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Bank of Montreal; Defendant (appellant): Granville Cadogan
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Adjournment, Electronic Land Registration, False Law Statement, Damages, Punitive Damages, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Property Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Adjournment Electronic Land Registration False Law Statement Damages +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of Montreal

Plaintiff (respondent)

Granville Cadogan

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was improperly prevented from having counsel participate
  3. 3 Whether the evidentiary record was incomplete or deficient for summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge did not err: he reasonably refused an adjournment based on a pattern of delay and inadequate proof, found the respondent's evidence credible and the appellant's explanations inconsistent, concluded the appellant knowingly made a false law statement on the electronic registry, and properly granted summary judgment including compensatory and punitive damages; the appellate court declined to interfere.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summary judgment upheld in favour of the respondent for $63,494.04