The Applicant applied for Summary Judgment under Rule 7.3 in relation to a loan that the Applicant purportedly advanced to the Respondent.

The Respondent argued that the loan was advanced to a corporation and not to him personally. In support, the Respondent produced a promissory note indicating that a company was the borrower. The Applicant produced a different promissory note allegedly signed by both parties indicating that the loan was issued to the Respondent personally, which the Respondent denied signing. In accordance with Rule 6.11, both parties tendered expert opinion evidence on the issue of whether the signature was in fact the Respondent’s.

The Court could not determine summarily who borrowed the funds because credibility was central to resolving that question. However, the Court granted Summary Judgment for unjust enrichment as the Respondent received the loan through a bank draft payable to him personally and deposited the funds into his personal account.