Beishuizen v. Dilon
In Beishuizen v. Dilon Chris Schuld and Brooke Fortugno successfully secured judgement against a borrower for unpaid loans through an expedited summary trial process. In granting judgment, the Court considered: (1) whether the matter was suitable for summary trial; (2) whether one of the loans was statute barred by the Limitation Act; and (3) how to deal with a criminal interest rate in respect of one of the loans.
The Court ruled in favour of our clients on all issues.
Having found that the matter was suitable for summary trial, the Court determined on the evidence that at various times over six years, the borrower had asked the lender to delay repayment of the loan, convincing him that it would benefit his company to hold onto the funds for longer. As the parties were friends, the lender agreed repeatedly. Schuld and Fortugno successfully argued that these verbal conversations constituted valid forbearance. As such, the borrower’s limitation defence failed.
On the issue of criminal interest, Schuld and Fortugno successfully argued that while the court had three options – to void the contract ab initio, to strike down the illegal term, or to read down the interest rate to 60 per cent per annum – the third option was most appropriate in the circumstances. The Court agreed and read down the interest rate to 60 per cent per annum to best reflect the intentions of the parties in forming the loan agreement.
Springman v. Surrey (City), 2021 BCSC 1804.
Evan Cooke and Andrew Schleichkorn successfully defended a multi-million dollar expropriation compensation claim filed against the expropriating municipality. Most significantly, the court dismissed claims of ongoing business losses and damages...