The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over whether a $400,000 unsecured line of credit was personal or corporate, finding no reversible error in the trial judge’s factual findings.
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the summary trial judge did not err in proceeding summarily, his factual findings rejecting the defences were supported by the uncontested record and discovery, and there was no risk of double recovery because the guarantees imposed joint and several liability and the company had not paid the debt.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed Daniel Blake’s appeal from summary dismissal of theft, fraud, and negligence claims arising from a CRA Request to Pay against his TD Bank account.
The Federal Court struck out a self-represented plaintiff’s claim against RBC for lack of jurisdiction, dismissed the action, and awarded the bank $1,000 in costs.
The court extended the CCAA stay to December 17, 2025, amended the order to allow ICBC arrears repayment by November 30, and raised the administration charge to $200,000.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision that the record allowed summary disposition: the bank established entitlement to judgment, the appellant's asserted defences lacked an air of reality given her admitted signatures, business role and sophistication, there was no special relationship imposing a duty on the bank to explain the guarantee, and procedural rules justified refusal to admit the late amended defence and the appellant's discovery transcript; accordingly summary judgment and the monetary award were affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
The adjudicator found on the balance of probabilities that extensive unauthorized transactions occurred, that the defendant had exercised reasonable care and notified AMEX, and that under AMEX's Fraud Protection Guarantee and the Cardmember Agreement an innocent cardholder is relieved of liability for proven fraudulent charges; accordingly AMEX's claim for the account balance is dismissed (the adjudicator also found AMEX breached fiduciary obligations but relied primarily on the contractual fraud guarantee to relieve liability).
The Supreme Court of Canada held that fraud by a third party can be attributed to a beneficiary of a counter-guarantee when the beneficiary knew of and participated in it.
The appeal is dismissed because the motion judge correctly concluded that the bank was entitled to the corporate assets under the General Security Agreement, Mr. Wang (who admitted possession and the bank's entitlement) must deliver those assets to the bank, and the signed agreements did not support the appellants' limitation argument regarding the guaranty.