Oxygen Working Capital Corp. v. Mouzakitis

Oxygen Working Capital Corp. v. Mouzakitis

The motion judge reasonably applied the Hryniak two-step analysis and s.20.04 enhanced powers, found the guarantees’ plain wording covered the June 2020 advance, rejected the appellants’ late, unpleaded and uncorroborated allegations of an oral limitation as incredible on the record, and therefore correctly concluded no genuine issue requiring a trial existed; summary judgment and the applied interest and costs orders were upheld.

Citation
2022 ONCA 90
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Oxygen Working Capital Corp.; Defendant (appellant): Mike Mouzakitis; Defendant (appellant): Angela Mouzakitis
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Collection / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment/motion Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment of the Superior Court affirmed in favour of respondent
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Guarantees, Interpretation of Contract, Rule 20 Enhanced Fact Finding, Misrepresentation, Costs, Prejudgment Interest
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Commercial Law Security/factoring Summary Judgment Guarantees Interpretation of Contract Rule 20 Enhanced Fact Finding +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oxygen Working Capital Corp.

Plaintiff (respondent)

Mike Mouzakitis

Defendant (appellant)

Angela Mouzakitis

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Collection / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment/motion Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding enforcement of continuing guarantees
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge properly used the enhanced powers under r.20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
  3. 3 Whether new evidence of an alleged oral representation limiting the guarantees created a credibility issue requiring a trial

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge reasonably applied the Hryniak two-step analysis and s.20.04 enhanced powers, found the guarantees’ plain wording covered the June 2020 advance, rejected the appellants’ late, unpleaded and uncorroborated allegations of an oral limitation as incredible on the record, and therefore correctly concluded no genuine issue requiring a trial existed; summary judgment and the applied interest and costs orders were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment of the Superior Court affirmed in favour of respondent

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted in favour of respondent for $289,190.59
  • Prejudgment interest awarded at 27% per annum on the principal judgment amount