Case Overview:

• Issue: Royal Bank of Canada (Plaintiff) sought summary judgment to recover $212,421.80 plus interest from a 2018 loan, where the Precision Markings Inc. and Isabell Helene Sickinger (Defendants) were jointly and severally liable.
• Key Argument: While Precision Markings admitted liability, Ms. Sickinger disputed personal liability, invoking the defense of non est factum (not my deed).

Key Findings:

• Loan Background:

  • The 2018 loan was the fourth loan signed by Ms. Sickinger for Precision Markings.
  • RBC claimed she was fully informed of her personal liability before signing.
  • Ms. Sickinger argued she misunderstood the nature of the agreement, relying on alleged assurances from the bank officer that she would not be personally liable.

• Defense of Non Est Factum:

  • The court found that the loan agreement was clear and unambiguous.
  • Misrepresentation was alleged but unproven.
  • The defense was dismissed as Ms. Sickinger had signed similar agreements previously and was deemed careless or indifferent.

• Summary Judgment:

  • The court ruled there was no genuine issue requiring trial.
  • Judgment was awarded to RBC for $212,421.80 plus interest (RBC prime rate + 3.71%).

Legal Principles Applied:

• Summary Judgment:
  • Per Rule 20.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, no trial is needed if the court can fairly resolve the matter based on evidence presented.
  • The principle of proportionate resolution was emphasized (per Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7).
• Non Est Factum:
  • Requires misrepresentation and no carelessness by the defendant (Marvco Colour Research Ltd. v. Harris, SCC).
  • Not applicable if the signer negligently fails to understand the contract.