A Nova Scotia company must repay more than $550,000 plus interest on a vendor-financed property purchase after the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia struck its defence and granted summary judgment to the sellers.
In Haliburton v. Miller Family Farms Limited, 2026 NSSC 310, Justice Gail L. Gatchalian held on October 15, 2026 that the company was bound by the $600,000 loan despite wording in the promissory note naming its president personally.
The court also rejected a claimed $50,000 credit against the loan and several other arguments that did not answer the company’s admitted failure to pay the outstanding balance when it came due.
The transaction identified the corporate borrower
David Edward Haliburton and Kristi Lyn Haliburton sold three Hants County properties to Miller Family Farms in October 2020 for $800,000. The company paid $200,000 and financed the rest through a vendor take-back mortgage, secured by the properties.
The loan called for monthly payments and repayment of the remaining balance on October 1, 2025. Miller Family Farms admitted that it had defaulted, but disputed the amount owing.
Company president Karl Chabot-Miller argued that the promissory note named him personally as borrower and that he had signed it in that capacity. Gatchalian found that wording was an error when read against the undisputed transaction documents and his evidence.
The company, not its president, had purchased the properties and granted the mortgage. Chabot-Miller signed the note under the company’s name and affixed its corporate seal. The mortgage described the company as the maker of the note and expressly secured its repayment obligations.
The company had also made 58 monthly payments. Its pleadings and the president’s testimony continued to acknowledge that it owed the money; the dispute concerned the proposed credit. Gatchalian concluded there was no genuine factual issue about whether he had bound Miller Family Farms.
Cash-credit claim lacked supporting evidence
Chabot-Miller said a $50,000 cash payment should have reduced the mortgage debt. His affidavit provided no details about the payment, including its date.
The judge contrasted that assertion with the closing statement, loan documents and payment history. The closing statement recorded no deposit, the repayment schedule made no allowance for the claimed credit, and the company had paid on the full loan amount without evidence of previously raising the issue.
Gatchalian held that the alleged cash payment was not a payment against the $600,000 loan. That conclusion concerned its treatment as a loan credit, not a finding that no cash payment could ever have occurred.
A thumbs-up emoji in a later text exchange did not establish the claimed acknowledgment either. The judge examined its context: one message mentioned the cash as part of a broader account of expenditure but did not say it should reduce the loan, while a second lengthy message did not mention the cash payment. The emoji followed the second message.
Other disputes did not answer the default
The company argued that cancellation of automatic monthly withdrawals may have caused the default. But it did not explain how that answered its failure to pay the full balance on the maturity date.
Gatchalian likewise found that discussions about a partial mortgage release, alleged interference with a possible property sale and a proposed resolution involving other property did not raise a material defence to the admitted default. The partial-release discussions had not produced a final agreement.
The decision applied the distinction between a genuine dispute requiring trial and an unsupported assertion contradicted by undisputed evidence. A summary judgment judge cannot decide credibility or weigh competing evidence, but may draw strongly supported inferences from undisputed facts.
With no genuine issue of material fact and no remaining question of law requiring determination, the court granted the lenders’ motion and struck the defence. The judgment also provides for five per cent interest on $546,775.28 from October 11, 2025 to judgment. Costs were left for agreement or further written submissions.
