Can a lender get summary judgment on a consolidated promissory note while oppression and related claims continue? In Beechhill Capital Corp. v. P2P Green Power Energy Solutions Inc., 2026 ONCA 786, released November 3, 2026, the Court of Appeal for Ontario said yes on these facts. It dismissed an appeal from partial summary judgment ordering repayment of the consolidated note (paras. 1, 7–9).
The decision at a glance
Citation: Beechhill Capital Corp. v. P2P Green Power Energy Solutions Inc., 2026 ONCA 786 (Court of Appeal for Ontario; Roberts, Favreau and Copeland JJ.A.). Heard October 29, 2026; released November 3, 2026.
Official text: Court of Appeal for Ontario decision
Result: appeal dismissed; costs of $10,000, all inclusive, to the respondents as agreed (paras. 9–10).
What happened
Between August 2018 and July 2019, Beechhill lent $1 million under three promissory notes due by August 31, 2020, secured by shares. On April 1, 2021 those amounts, plus further advances, were consolidated into one note for over $1.3 million, again share-secured, due March 31, 2023 (para. 2).
The parties brought several claims against each other, including Beechhill's claim on the consolidated note and the appellants' oppression claim. Beechhill moved for summary judgment on the note. The motion judge granted the motion and ordered repayment (para. 3).
Why the appeal failed
The appellants argued misrepresentation about the value of the shares that secured the note, lack of consideration and a limitations problem, oppression, and that inducement and other facts needed a trial (para. 4). The Court of Appeal held they were essentially re-arguing the motion without identifying reversible error. It is not the role of the Court to decide the issues afresh (para. 5).
On findings the Court endorsed: the loans were advanced before the alleged misrepresentations, so there was no inducement; the limitation period ran from the consolidated note's due date; and forbearance on the earlier notes was consideration for the consolidated note (para. 6).
Partial summary judgment was proper because the factual and legal circumstances of the note were extricable from the remaining claims (para. 7). Equitable set-off had not been pleaded and would not have been available in the circumstances of this case; oppression and related claims remain open, but repayment of the note stands (para. 8).
Who this affects
Private lenders and noteholders enforcing a consolidated note while broader commercial litigation continues (paras. 2–3, 7).
Borrowers raising inducement, limitations or oppression defences to a note claim (paras. 4, 6, 8).
Practical takeaways
Partial summary judgment can isolate a note. If the debt claim is factually and legally separable, repayment can be ordered before related oppression fights finish (para. 7).
Inducement needs the right timeline. Advances made before the alleged misrepresentations undercut an inducement defence (para. 6).
Consolidation and forbearance matter. Forbearance on earlier notes can supply consideration and fix when the limitation clock starts on a consolidated note (para. 6).
Plead set-off if you rely on it. Equitable set-off was not pleaded and would not have been available here (para. 8).
Facing a promissory note or commercial debt dispute? Book a consultation
Francis Mehr LLP handles commercial litigation for clients in Ottawa and across Ontario. Book a consultation with the lawyers at Francis Mehr LLP: call (613) 226-1011 or contact us.
Written by the lawyers of Francis Mehr LLP. Published [DATE OF PUBLICATION]; reflects the decision released November 3, 2026. This post is general information, not legal advice.