Judgment Released: December 30, 2010  Link to Judgment

The plaintiff chargee moved for summary judgment to, among other things, foreclose the defendant’s equity in the subject property and obtain possession of the property.  The Court described the matter as “far from a straightforward commercial relationship”.  The Court acknowledged the amendments to Rule 20 but found that the amendments would not provide the Court with jurisdiction to “simply prefer and accept the evidence of the plaintiff”.  The defendants alleged the plaintiff had promised not to take certain steps to enforce their rights and the Court acknowledged that the defendants had an “arguable” defence of promissory estoppel.  A trial was required to appropriately determine, on additional evidence, what took place between the parties.

Judgment Released:   November 15, 2010  Link to Judgment

The plaintiff was suing to recover amounts owing by the defendants pursuant to a guarantee agreement, and also sought that the Court pierce the corporate veil, making certain individuals and subsidiaries of the defendant liable, and a declaration that there had been a fraudulent conveyance by the defendants.  The defendants brought a counterclaim in negligence against the plaintiffs.  Justice Perell noted that on a motion for summary judgment the onus remained with the moving party to establish that there was no genuine issue for trial and for the responding party to present its best case or risk losing.  The Court concluded that the plaintiff had successfully established that there was no genuine issue for trial with respect to recovering the monies owed pursuant to the guarantee.  Further, on the basis that the defendants had lead their best case, the Court found they failed to establish that there was a genuine issue for trial respecting their counterclaim against the plaintiffs in negligence, and it was dismissed.  However, the Court found that the plaintiff had not met the evidentiary burden of proving there was no genuine issue for trial with respect to the request to pierce the corporate veil or whether there had been a fraudulent conveyance by the defendants.  Thus the Court ordered partial summary judgment and ordered that the two remaining issues be determined at trial.