Case information

Civil procedure — Hearing — Judgments and orders — Reasons — Bank obtaining summary judgment on three unsecured debts after applicant failed to make payments in accordance with the credit agreements — Whether the court should allow, under any circumstances, a party who seeks to go before the court prior to evidence disclosure and cross-examination, to selectively release evidence on a motion by motion basis — What is the threshold for the required inclusion of key arguments in reasons for decision/endorsement documents issued by the court? — Whether it is acceptable for such court records to omit any reference to such key arguments — Whether there is a critical obligation, in matters which will be heard by multiple judges, for precise and detailed reasons for decision/endorsement/judgment documents.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In November of 2020, the respondent bank commenced an action against the applicant Mr. Sutherland for non-payment on a line of credit and two credit cards, on which a total of $172,000 was owing. The bank also held a first mortgage on cottage owned by Mr. Sutherland to secure another line of credit. Mr. Sutherland filed a defence and counterclaim. On May 20, 2021, the court granted the bank’s motion to strike portions of Mr. Sutherland’s statement of defence on the basis that those portions did not relate to the line of credit and two credit cards that were in issue. The entire counterclaim was also struck because it did not disclose a cause of action against the bank. The bank then brought a motion for summary judgment. The motion judge observed that Mr. Sutherland did not deny the existence of the debt related to the line of credit and the two credit cards, his liability for the amounts owed or the amount owing. The motion judge concluded that there was no genuine issue for trial and granted the summary judgment in favour of the bank. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Sutherland’s appeal.