|
Bill of Exchange - Consideration. Jaymat Limited v. Trichilo
In Jaymat Limited v. Trichilo (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against "a summary judgment award in the amount of $2,100,000".
Here the court considers bills of exchange and accompanying contractual consideration:[9] Lastly, the appellants submit that the promissory note was unenforceable because they did not receive valuable consideration upon executing this document. As fairly acknowledged by the appellants, the success of this ground of appeal is largely dependent on succeeding on the previous grounds of appeal. In any event, we see no error in the motion judge’s resolution of this issue. The motion judge applied the rebuttable presumption that every signatory to a promissory note receives valuable consideration. He found that this was not rebutted by the appellants. The consideration in this case was constituted by “an antecedent debt or liability” on the part of both appellants (see the Bills of Exchange Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-4, s. 52(1)(b)). The motion judge found that the forbearance of immediately enforcing the debt, combined with the forgiveness of $110,000 in interest as it related to the bridge loan, was sufficient consideration. This factual finding was available to the motion judge on the record and is entitled to deference on appeal.
|
