Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Substitution of the plaintiff due to corporate amalgamation was permitted by the court.

• Breach of a commercial lease agreement for a tractor semi-truck triggered enforcement of default remedies.

• The defendant failed to respond to the summary trial application or appear with instructions, leaving the claim uncontested.

• Summary trial was deemed appropriate due to the absence of factual disputes.

• Contractual interest at 26.82% was awarded only up to a cutoff date, with mitigation issues affecting further accrual.

• Full indemnity legal costs were granted under the lease's enforcement clause, subject to assessment.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

The dispute arose from a lease agreement entered on or about December 10, 2013, between Equirex Vehicle Leasing 2007 Inc. (later amalgamated and renamed Bennington Financial Corp.) and two lessees: Sergey Adereyko Walter and New Future Enterprises Ltd. The leased equipment was a tractor semi-truck. The lessees were jointly and severally liable. The agreement included a fixed monthly rent and specified remedies in the event of default, including accelerated payments, interest, and legal fees.

On July 21, 2016, the leased vehicle caught fire and became a total loss. Subsequently, on February 21, 2017, the plaintiff issued a demand for payment under the lease, citing arrears that constituted a contractual default. The defendant made no payments, and the plaintiff initiated a civil claim on June 4, 2018. Although Mr. Walter responded to the claim in 2020 through his lawyer, E. James McNeney, Q.C., he denied liability and referenced ongoing litigation with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), which had denied coverage due to suspected arson. Despite repeated attempts by the plaintiff’s counsel to reach a consent judgment, the defendant remained largely unresponsive, and the plaintiff eventually moved for summary trial.

Procedural history and legal reasoning

At the summary trial hearing in May 2025, the court allowed the substitution of Bennington Financial Corp. as the proper plaintiff following the corporate amalgamation. The defendant did not oppose the application and failed to file a response or provide instructions to his counsel. The court found that the claim was suitable for summary determination, as there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.

Justice Tucker reviewed the lease agreement’s default clause and adopted the reasoning from a previous similar case (Equirex v. Verhage, 2013 BCSC 1142), finding that although the default clause imposed significant financial penalties, it was not oppressive and reflected the plaintiff’s legitimate entitlement under the contract. However, the judge found that the plaintiff had a duty to mitigate its losses, particularly given the high interest rate. Interest was therefore awarded only up to December 31, 2023, the point at which the plaintiff had clearly indicated its intent to proceed but did not take immediate action.

Judgment and outcome

The court awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Bennington Financial Corp., in the amount of $613,930.16, representing unpaid rental amounts, present value of future rent and equipment FMV, and contractual interest up to December 31, 2023. The court also granted full substantial indemnity legal costs in accordance with the lease agreement, to be assessed by the Registrar. The plaintiff's request to substitute its name in the style of cause was approved. Mr. Walter did not contest the judgment, and no damages or costs were awarded against him beyond what was claimed by the plaintiff.