Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants defaulted on a secured Visa credit agreement, entitling the lender to possession under the registered Charge.

• No affidavit or admissible evidence was submitted by the Defendants in response to the summary judgment motion.

• Materials filed by the Defendants were deemed irrelevant and failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

• Summary judgment was granted under Rule 20, guided by Hryniak v. Mauldin, as all findings of fact and legal application were straightforward.

• The Counterclaim was dismissed as unintelligible, incoherent, and frivolous.

• $20,000 in costs was awarded to the Plaintiff due to the Defendants’ failure to resolve the matter and unreasonable conduct.

Facts of the case

In Home Trust Company v. Campbell et al., 2025 ONSC 925, the Plaintiff sought to recover $57,599.43 under a Home Trust Equityline Visa Card issued to the Defendants, Adrian Campbell and Louise Miner. The Visa had a credit limit of $52,000 with interest payable at a rate of 12.99% per annum. The credit line was secured by a Charge dated October 20, 2014, registered on the Defendants’ property at 2121 Valin Street, Ottawa.

On September 15, 2014, the Defendants signed an Acknowledgment confirming their understanding of the transaction and the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice. A default occurred in or around February 6, 2023. The Plaintiff issued a Notice of Sale under Charge on February 24, 2023, and a Notice Demanding Possession on May 16, 2023. As of December 19, 2023, the amount of $57,599.43 remained due and unpaid.

Legal proceedings and summary judgment motion

The Plaintiff moved for summary judgment under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court considered Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, which sets the standard for summary judgment when the judge can make necessary findings of fact, apply the law, and determine the matter fairly and justly without trial.

The Defendants did not file any affidavit evidence. Instead, Ms. Miner submitted a range of documents during the motion, including a Bill of Lading, a Settlement Bond, a Bill of Exchange, and an Allonge, among others. The court found these materials to be irrelevant. Although there were references to amounts allegedly paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court, there was no supporting evidence.

The Statement of Defence was brief, comprising three paragraphs and offering no substantive rebuttal to the Plaintiff’s claims. During the hearing, Ms. Miner made incoherent arguments involving multiple trusts and requested that the judge act as Chancellor of these trusts. The court rejected these submissions and found no genuine issue for trial.

Counterclaim and costs

The Defendants’ Counterclaim for $48,974.71 alleged a failure by the Plaintiff to perform based on an initial promissory note. The court found the Counterclaim devoid of particulars or evidence. It was declared “unintelligible, incoherent, disjointed, and incapable of success” and was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The Plaintiff sought $23,475.31 in costs. The court noted the Charge’s Standard Charge Terms included an obligation by the Defendants to pay legal costs related to enforcement. Finding the Defendants' position misguided and their conduct unreasonable, the court awarded $20,000 in all-inclusive costs to the Plaintiff.

Outcome

The court ordered the following:

• The Defendants must pay $57,599.43 plus interest at 12.99% per annum from December 19, 2023, until paid.

• The Defendants must deliver possession of the property.

• Leave was granted to issue a Writ of Possession.

• The Counterclaim was dismissed.

• The Defendants must pay $20,000 in costs to the Plaintiff.