|
Civil Litigation Dicta - Summary Judgment - Standard of Review (SOR). Sanasie v. Chateramdas [SOR for partial SJ]
In Sanasie v. Chateramdas (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed two appeals related to title and mortgage fraud, here brought against orders "granting partial summary judgement, setting aside both the transfer of the home and registration of the mortgage, and ordered punitive damages to be paid by the adult child".
Here the court considered the SOR for summary judgment:[32] The decision by a motion judge to grant partial summary judgment is a finding of mixed fact and law, and reviewable for palpable and overriding error, where there is no extricable error in principle. However, deference is to be afforded to a decision to grant summary judgment, unless there are extricable errors of law: Froom v. Lafontaine, 2023 ONCA 519, 168 O.R. (3d) 102, at para. 80 . Bank of Montreal v. Bronfman
In Bank of Montreal v. Bronfman (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here from a successful claim by a bank on it's "summary judgment ... for amounts due on a credit card and two lines of credit".
Here the court considered the appellate SOR respecting "whether a matter is suitable for summary judgment generally":[19] The determination of whether a matter is suitable for summary judgment generally attracts deference and, absent an extricable error in principle or palpable and overriding error, this determination should not be disturbed on appeal: Baywood Homes Partnership v. Haditaghi, 2014 ONCA 450, 120 O.R. (3d) 438, at para. 30. . Rose-Terra Investments Inc. v. Chetti
In Rose-Terra Investments Inc. v. Chetti (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the SOR applicable to appealing a summary judgment ruling:B. Issues and Analysis
[13] The appellant acknowledges the high degree of deference owed to a summary judgment motion judge’s decision: see Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at paras. 81-84. However, she submits that the motion judge made extricable legal errors and palpable and overriding errors in his analysis. Specifically, the appellant submits that the motion judge erred by applying the wrong legal test in considering the allegations of undue influence and duress, which in turn led him to incorrectly consider the sufficiency of the legal advice provided to the appellant by her own counsel. As a result, the appellant submits, the motion judge erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.
[14] I am not persuaded that the motion judge made any reversible errors.
[15] The motion judge applied the appropriate governing principles. He found that the minutes of settlement benefitted the appellant. He also found that she was represented by experienced counsel who represented to respondent’s counsel that the appellant had received legal advice independently from her husband and that she had entered into the minutes of settlement of her own free will and without undue influence or duress. Those findings were open to him on the record.
|
