Evidence in Summary Judgment Motions: Ontario Superior Court Provides Guidance for Responding Parties

Tyler O’HenlyCivil Litigation, Commercial, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Lending, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Debt and Enforcing Judgments, Summary Judgment0 Comments

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) provides an important reminder for parties responding to a summary judgment motion.  In Lukey Capital Corp v. 1000110300 Ontario Inc. et al, 2024 ONSC 6589 (“Lukey Capital”), the plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment before the Court for the payment of a loan it made to the Defendants under a promissory note. Upon reviewing the evidence before it, the Court granted the sought relief.   In doing so, the Court underscored a key principle for parties responding to a summary judgment motion to keep in mind.   The Defendants made several arguments that there were genuine issues in the proceeding which required a trial. Among these arguments was a submission that other evidence may be uncovered through further examinations and productions which would support their defence. The Court, echoing well-settled principles regarding evidence on summary judgment motions … Read More

Summary Judgment Granted, Costs Awarded – Ontario Superior Court grants Summary Judgment in FactR Limited v. R.R.I.C.H. Construction, 2024 ONSC 4792

Harrison Neill-MorabitoBusiness Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial and Contract Litigation, Commercial Lending, Commercial Litigation, Contract Disputes, Summary Judgment0 Comments

Summary judgment is a powerful procedural mechanism, allowing a party to file a motion to resolve a case early in the proceedings if there are no genuine issues for trial. In FactR Limited v. R.R.I.C.H. Construction, 2024 ONSC 4792, the Ontario Superior Court recently demonstrated the enhanced fact-finding powers afforded to judges when determining summary judgment motions involving contractual breaches and conversion of property. In FactR Limited v. R.R.I.C.H. Construction, the plaintiffs sought to recover money loaned to two defendants (the “Contract Defendants”) through invoicing factoring agreements (the “Agreements”), as well as an additional defendant for their alleged role in improperly converting a cheque payable to the plaintiffs (the “Fraudulent Defendant”). The motion judge ultimately ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment and concluding there were no genuine issues requiring a trial. At the hearing for the summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs tendered evidence demonstrating the Contract Defendants’ … Read More