Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• RBC sought summary judgment for two debts: a business line of credit and a corporate Visa card.

• The corporate defendant admitted liability, while the individual defendant denied personal responsibility.

• The court assessed whether Roger Alonzo, as sole director, was personally liable alongside the corporation.

• Alonzo was found liable for the business line of credit but not for the Visa card debt.

• The main focus of the cost hearing was apportioning costs fairly, given the mixed success of each party.

• The court awarded reduced costs to RBC, acknowledging its overall success but also Alonzo’s partial defense.

Background and context of the dispute

The Royal Bank of Canada initiated a debt recovery action against 1108135 Ontario Inc., doing business as Trends Décor, and its sole director, Roger Alonzo. RBC claimed repayment of two separate debts: one under a Business Operating Line (BOL) and the other under a Visa credit card issued to the company. The BOL amounted to $10,615.46 and the Visa balance totaled $57,844.23, both with applicable interest rates.

Admission of liability by the corporation

The corporate defendant admitted liability for both debts before the court hearing, though it contested RBC's entitlement to full legal costs. This admission was reflected in the factum filed well after the litigation had already advanced, prompting the court to consider the timing and nature of the admission when determining costs.

Personal liability of the individual defendant

Roger Alonzo, the sole director and shareholder of the corporation, denied having personally guaranteed either debt. The court carefully examined the agreements and evidence presented. It concluded that Mr. Alonzo was personally liable for the BOL debt but not for the Visa card debt, meaning his liability was limited to a smaller portion of the total amount claimed.

Judgment amounts and interest calculations

As of June 9, 2025, the judgment amounts included prejudgment interest: $11,024.13 for the BOL and $63,895.04 for the Visa card. The court also ordered post-judgment interest based on the terms of the respective agreements. The corporation remained liable for both debts, while Alonzo was only liable for the BOL.

Arguments and principles regarding costs

The core issue at the cost hearing was how to apportion legal costs in light of each party’s level of success. RBC reduced its claim from over $27,000 to $11,475.35 to reflect Alonzo’s partial success. 135 Ontario argued it should be responsible only for pre-March 2025 costs, and Alonzo sought reimbursement of his own costs on the grounds that he successfully defended the larger claim. Both relied on appellate case law emphasizing that overall success, not success on discrete issues, should guide cost awards.

Court’s reasoning and cost ruling

Justice Sheard found that RBC had achieved greater overall success, having obtained full judgment against the corporation and partial judgment against Alonzo. The court emphasized that the defendants had not clearly admitted liability until late in the process and had initially asked that the case be dismissed entirely. Based on fairness, proportionality, and statutory discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs at $11,475.35 in RBC’s favor. These were made payable jointly and severally by both defendants.