Great Am. Leasing Corp. v. Yates,

Great Am. Leasing Corp. v. Yates (2003), 180 O.A.C. 130 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.023

Great America Leasing Corporation (plaintiff/respondent) v. John Yates (defendant/appellant)

(C40052)

Indexed As: Great America Leasing Corp. v. Yates

Ontario Court of Appeal

Moldaver, Borins and MacPherson, JJ.A.

December 4, 2003.

Summary:

Yates and two Michigan residents, were partners in a company that owned and operated a golf course in Michigan. A creditor sued the company and the partners for monies owing under a defaulted loan agreement. One of the partners appeared and defended on the basis that the interest and other fees charged were usurious. Yates chose not to appear to defend. The Michigan court granted summary judgment against the company and all three partners. The creditor brought an action in Ontario to enforce the foreign judgment against Yates. Yates opposed enforcement on the public policy grounds (i.e., violation of criminal interest rate provisions of Criminal Code).

The Ontario Superior Court granted summary judgment to enforce the Michigan judgment. Yates appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1742

Offences against property - Criminal interest rate - Interest defined - The defendant was a partner in a Michigan company that owned and operated a golf course in Michigan - The company and partners owed monies to a Michigan company on a lease - The lease went into default, resulting in accelerated payments, interest and legal fees - The lessor obtained summary judgment in Michigan - One of the partners had defended on the basis of usury - The defendant chose not to appear, but defended an action in Ontario to enforce the foreign judgment on the ground that enforcement was contrary to public policy (i.e., violation of criminal interest provisions of Criminal Code) - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the action to enforce the foreign judgment - There was no suggestion of procedural irregularities or natural justice concerns respecting the Michigan proceeding - Comity required enforcement of a foreign judgment resulting from open and fair proceedings in which the defendant had notice, an opportunity to appear and where the issue of usury was raised and rejected - The defendant failed to establish that the lease fell within the ambit of s. 347 of the Criminal Code, let alone offended it.

Practice - Topic 5927

Judgments and orders - Enforcement of foreign judgments - Bars - Public policy - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1742 ].

Cases Noticed:

Morguard Investments Ltd. et al. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077; 122 N.R. 81; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 256, refd to. [para. 1].

United States of America v. Ivey et al. (1996), 93 O.A.C. 152; 30 O.R.(3d) 370 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Beals v. Saldanha et al. (2001), 148 O.A.C. 1; 54 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Sovereign General Insurance Co. et al. (2002), 157 O.A.C. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Four Embarcadero Center Venture v. Kalen (1988), 65 O.R.(2d) 551; 27 C.P.C.(2d) 260 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

McIntyre Estate v. Ontario (Attorney General) (2002), 164 O.A.C. 37; 61 O.R.(3d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Society of Lloyd's v. Saunders (2001), 148 O.A.C. 362; 55 O.R.(3d) 688 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 20, 32].

Society of Lloyd's v. Meinzer - see Society of Lloyd's v. Saunders.

Boardwalk Regency Corp. v. Maalouf (1992), 51 O.A.C. 64; 6 O.R.(3d) 737; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 612 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Hi-Tech Group Inc. v. Sears Canada Inc. (2001), 141 O.A.C. 56; 52 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Lang et al. v. Kligerman et al., [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 374 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 112; 231 N.R. 1; 114 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 37].

Degelder Construction Co. v. Dancorp Developments Ltd. et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 112; 231 N.R. 122; 113 B.C.A.C. 1; 184 W.A.C. 1; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 417, refd to. [para. 38].

Counsel:

Gino Morga, Q.C., for the respondent;

David M. McNevin, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 2003, before Moldaver, Borins and MacPherson, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was released on December 4, 2003, and the following opinions were filed:

MacPherson, J.A. (Moldaver, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 31;

Borins, J.A. - see paragraphs 32 to 44.