Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a loan default and guarantee case, upholding summary judgment for the bank and awarding costs of $7,500.
The syndication condition did not permit Romspen to terminate its separate $212,000,000 lender commitment; Romspen's refusal to advance further funds on March 31, 2020 based solely on syndication constituted a breach of the Loan Agreement unless Romspen can establish entitlement to cease funding under other contractual conditions, which remain remitted to the trial court to determine.
Source excerpt
La Cour a déclaré nulle la clause d’intérêt majoré de 22 % sous le régime de l’Interest Act, mais a maintenu valide le renouvellement à 12,7 %.
Appeal dismissed from a registrar’s payment order requiring Helen Chan Sun to pay $300,000 monthly toward a judgment debt.
The court held a 22% default interest clause unenforceable under s. 8 of the Interest Act, but treated the demand as valid notice and set redemption at 30 days.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Argo’s appeal, holding that currency exchange savings were not part of net distributable cash under the related loan documents.
The Court of Appeal held leave to appeal was not required because the challenged order was not made under the CCAA and the supervising judge preserved appeal rights.
The single judge concluded 255 had standing to seek interim relief and, because the motions judge had not provided reasons explaining why he permitted the Debtor to redeem the first mortgage (raising integrity‑of‑process concerns and an arguable ground of appeal), it was appropriate to continue a stay of the July 4 and 9, 2024 provisional execution orders under BIA s.195 and refer threshold and merits issues to a panel for full hearing; provisional execution was stayed until the panel’s determination (or further order).
Source excerpt
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ summary judgment application, finding genuine issues for trial on forgery, preclusion, and whether BMO was a holder in due course of Cheque 1117.
The motion judge acted within his discretion in using the enhanced powers under r.20.04(2.1) and (2.2), including ordering limited oral evidence from a non-party; the appellants’ misrepresentation defence did not raise a genuine issue for trial; the third-party negligence claim against the solicitor was a separate proceeding that did not bar summary judgment; therefore the summary judgment in favour of TD Bank was correctly granted and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
