This was an Application for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 7.3. In the underlying Action, the Applicant, Rabobank Canada (“Rabobank”), started an Action against George Stringam, alleging that Rabobank loaned Mr. Stringam funds pursuant to a Financing Agreement so he could purchase farm equipment and supplies from Richardson Pioneer Ltd. (“Richardson”). The Statement of Claim alleged that Mr. Stringam failed to repay the loan, with the amount owing being approximately $86,000.

Mr. Stringam defended the Action against him on the basis that the equipment and fertilizer he acquired from Richardson were defective. Mr. Stringam pleaded that the Action against him should be dismissed because the losses he suffered exceeded the amount due pursuant to the Financing Agreement with Rabobank. Mr. Stringam also started a third-party Action against Richardson, alleging that the fertilizer spreader he acquired from Richardson was defective, resulting in an uneven application of fertilizer across Mr. Stringam’s lands.

Rabobank filed an Application for Summary Judgment against Mr. Stringam for the amounts owing pursuant to the Financing Agreement. Richardson also applied for summary dismissal of the third-party claim against it.

The Financing Agreement included a term that Mr. Stringam was obligated to repay Rabobank all amounts advanced on his behalf in accordance with the Financing Agreement, even if the amounts advanced exceeded his credit limit. It was further found that Mr. Stringam subsequently signed a repayment plan, acknowledging that he was indebted to Rabobank and promised to repay. Given these facts, which were largely uncontradicted, Rabobank established its claim in debt against Mr. Stringam.

However, the Court noted that to succeed on a Summary Judgment Application, Rabobank must further establish that Mr. Stringam has no meritorious defence to the claim. On this front, Mr. Stringam raised three defences. First, he claimed that Rabobank’s action is statute-barred because Rabobank filed the claim after the expiration of the limitation period. Second, he claimed that Rabobank did not consistently provide him statements of account and notice of the increases to his credit limit, and was therefore in breach of the Financing Agreement. Third, Mr. Stringam argued that Richardson and Rabobank were in an “agency relationship” and any amount of indebtedness to Rabobank was more than offset by damages caused to him because of a faulty fertilizer spreader provided by Richardson.

The Court rejected each of Mr. Stringam’s defences. In particular, Justice Armstrong found: (i) Mr. Stringam’s obligation to repay the amounts he borrowed through the Financing Agreement was an ongoing obligation; (ii) although Rabobank neglected to send statements to Mr. Stringam, he “was aware of all the amounts he was borrowing and the indebtedness he was incurring pursuant to the Financing Agreement [and] knew full well how the credit financing worked”; and (iii) the “plain wording of the Financing Agreement clearly differentiate[d] between Rabobank and any dealer a borrower may do business with”. Mr. Stringam accepted the acknowledgement in the Financing Agreement that any purchase made from the dealer or manufacturer was not from Rabobank and that those purchases were on an “as-is, where-is” basis.

Taken together, Armstrong J. was satisfied that there was no meritorious defence to Rabobank’s claim in debt as against Mr. Stringam. The Application for Summary Judgment against Mr. Stringam was allowed.

With respect to the third-party claim against Richardson, the Court determined that Richardson did not meet the burden of proof required for summary dismissal. There were unresolved factual issues regarding the functionality of the fertilizer spreader and its impact on crop yield and quality, which was a genuine issue that required a Trial.