Gyimah v. Bank of Nova Scotia et al., (2013) 305 O.A.C. 198 (CA)

• Judge: Blair, Juriansz and Tulloch, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 09, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2013), 305 O.A.C. 198 (CA);2013 ONCA 252

Gyimah v. BNS (2013), 305 O.A.C. 198 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.040

Anthony Gyimah (plaintiff/appellant) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, Scotialine Visa, Mike McKeil and Avin Sharma (defendants/respondents)

(C56150; 2013 ONCA 252)

Indexed As: Gyimah v. Bank of Nova Scotia et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Blair, Juriansz and Tulloch, JJ.A.

April 9, 2013.

Summary:

Gyimah claimed damages against the defendants for wrongful termination of his loan facilities (a line of credit and Visa card). The defendants counterclaimed for the amounts outstanding on the loan facilities at the time of cancellation. The defendants moved for summary judgment.

A motion judge allowed the motion and dismissed Gyimah's claim. The defendants were awarded $18,491 for their counterclaim, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Gyimah appealed, arguing that there was a genuine issue for trial respecting his claim for damages. The defendants cross-appealed, claiming that they were entitled to a higher amount of prejudgment interest and costs.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Gyimah's appeal and allowed the cross-appeal respecting interest. The court did not grant the defendants leave to appeal costs.

Banks and Banking - Topic 1201

Powers of banks - General - Gyimah claimed damages against the defendants for wrongful termination of his loan facilities (a line of credit and Visa card) - The defendants moved for summary judgment - A motion judge allowed the motion and dismissed Gyimah's claim - Gyimah appealed, arguing that there was a genuine issue for trial respecting his claim for damages - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Gyimah's appeal - The defendants had broad powers under the loan facilities contracts to renew, amend, or cancel the loan facilities - The defendants had received a credit report that indicated Gyimah posed a high credit risk - They also conducted a review that disclosed some history of uneven payments by Gyimah on their own accounts - Notwithstanding that the accounts were in good standing at the time, the defendants were entitled to cancel the loan facilities under the provisions of the loan facilities contracts - See paragraphs 5 to 9.

Banks and Banking - Topic 5537

Loans - Line of credit - Revocation - [See Banks and Banking - Topic 1201 ].

Interest - Topic 5009

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - Prejudgment interest - Calculation of (incl. rate) - Gyimah claimed damages against the defendants for wrongful termination of his loan facilities (a line of credit and Visa card) - The defendants counterclaimed for the amounts outstanding on the loan facilities at the time of cancellation - The defendants moved for summary judgment - A motion judge allowed the motion and dismissed Gyimah's claim - The defendants were awarded $18,491 for their counterclaim, plus prejudgment interest and costs - Gyimah appealed - The defendants cross-appealed, claiming that they were entitled to a higher amount of prejudgment interest and costs - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Gyimah's appeal and allowed the cross-appeal with respect to interest - The motion judge erred by imposing the interest rate provided for under the Courts of Justice Act instead of the higher rate provided for in the loan facilities contracts - The court did not grant the defendants leave to appeal costs - See paragraphs 10 and 11.

Interest - Topic 5045

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - Statutes - Application of - [See Interest - Topic 5009 ].

Interest - Topic 5303

Interest as damages (prejudgment interest) - Interest on payment of money or debt withheld - Amount due under a contract - [See Interest - Topic 5009 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co. et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 171; 159 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Anthony Gyimah, in person;

Kate Findlay, for the respondents.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on April 9, 2013, before Blair, Juriansz and Tulloch, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The court released the following endorsement orally on the same date.