judgment on the promissory note. Instead, he directed a trial of
 The appellants argue that the motion judge made two main
errors: ( i) granting judgment in respect of the proceeds based
solely on the documentary evidence without hearing oral evidence; and ( ii) granting judgment on the proceeds claim while
directing a trial on the promissory note claim when the two matters are interconnected and not separable.
 We are not persuaded by either submission.
First Issue: Whether a Genuine Issue Requiring a Trial Exists
Regarding Entitlement to the Insurance Proceeds
 There is no dispute that Mr. Brown was designated as the
sole beneficiary of the policy. Notwithstanding that designation,
the appellants claim a genuine issue requiring a trial exists that
they are entitled to the proceeds on two main grounds.
(1) The buy-sell agreement
 First, the appellants submit that the record discloses a triable dispute as to whether Mr. Brown and Mr. Laurie had entered
into a buy-sell agreement under which the proceeds from the
insurance policy on one partner’s life would be used to purchase
his shares in the company from his estate.
 The appellants point to several pieces of evidence in support of the existence of a buy-sell agreement: a notation on the
application for the insurance policy that its purpose was for “Buy
Sell”; a handwritten note apparently made by an insurance broker, Mr. Mike Smolders, memorializing a discussion with the two
business partners about a “buy/sell”; and Ms. Laurie’s evidence
that her husband had told her that all of the insurance proceeds
were to be paid to her. They submit this evidence discloses a genuine issue requiring a trial as to the existence of a buy-sell
 The motion judge held that Mr. Brown and Mr. Laurie had
not entered into a buy-sell agreement. First, he observed that the
share purchase agreement made no mention of a buy-sell agreement. Next, he concluded that Ms. Laurie’s evidence about her
discussions with her husband constituted inadmissible hearsay.
We see no error in that ruling.
 Further, the motion judge viewed the note by the insurance broker as only supporting an inference that a buy-sell
agreement never advanced beyond initial discussions between
the business partners. We see no palpable and overriding error
in that finding.