RAYNER v MIZIER

Justice Martin dismissed the Appeal of a decision by Applications Judge Schlosser to grant the Respondent's Application for Summary Judgment in relation to a loan that the Appellant advanced to the Respondent.

The Court acknowledged that this was not a de novo Appeal since there was no new evidence before the Court pursuant to Rule 6.14(3). Therefore, the standard of review was correctness.

Justice Martin reviewed Rule 7.3(a), permitting Summary Judgment where there is no defence to a claim or part thereof, as well as Rule 6.11 dictating what evidence the Court may consider. The Court acknowledged that the burden was on the Applicant to prove the case was suitable for summary disposition.

The Court upheld the Applications Judge’s decision to grant Summary Judgment for the Respondent's unjust enrichment claim. Justice Martin held that the Appellant was unjustly enriched because the bank draft was made out to him personally, he received the loan into his personal account, and he directed funds toward personal expenditures, without paying the loan back.

Martin J. noted that the Respondent's brief had contended that Applications Judge Schlosser erred in finding that one of the issues raised in the Respondent's claim could not be determined summarily. The Court stated that under Rule 6.14, the scope of an Appeal is determined by the Notice of Appeal. The Respondent had not filed a Cross-Appeal and the issue raised by the Respondent was not within the scope of the Appellant's Notice of Appeal. Therefore, Justice Martin concluded that the Respondent could not raise this issue simply because the Appellant had filed an Appeal. Regardless, the Court held that Applications Judge Schlosser had correctly determined that the issue was not suitable for Summary Judgment.