Aaron Hany George Boghossian

The plaintiff mortgagee moved for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage by way of power of sale and for a writ of possession.

The defendant mortgagor had defaulted on payments and failed to redeem the mortgage.

Although the defendant filed a Statement of Defence, he did not file any responding evidence on the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, granted summary judgment for the outstanding mortgage debt of $564,514.56, and ordered a writ of possession.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Trimble J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party, who defaulted on a residential mortgage, sought to stay the enforcement of a summary judgment and writ of possession pending her appeal.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment to the respondent lender after finding no evidence to support the moving party's allegations of fraud.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-Macdonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm since loss of possession was a bargained-for consequence of default, and that the balance of convenience favoured the lender who had been deprived of its security for two years.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment relating to a collateral mortgage registered against her properties.

She argued that she was not properly served with the statement of claim under Rule 16.03(5) because she no longer resided at the address where service was attempted, and alternatively, that she met the test for setting aside a default judgment.

The court found that service was non-compliant, entitling the defendant to have the judgment set aside as of right.

The court further held that the defendant met the test for setting aside the judgment, noting her prompt action upon discovery, plausible explanation for default, and arguable defence of fraud and lack of consent due to language and vision impairments.

The appellant mortgagee appealed a decision holding that the court had no jurisdiction to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) at the instance of a mortgagee exercising a power of sale.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 103(6)(c) of the Courts of Justice Act confers a broad discretion to discharge a CPL where it is just to do so, including at the request of a mortgagee whose mortgage ranks in priority to the interest claimed in the CPL.

The court found the application judge erred and set aside her order, remitting the matter to the Superior Court for further proceedings on whether the discretion should be exercised in the changed circumstances.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment on a defaulted mortgage.

The self-represented defendants failed to attend the hearing despite multiple notices.

The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of default on the renewed mortgage.

The defendants' unparticularized defenses of non est factum, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unconscionability were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the outstanding debt of $946,408.35, plus costs.

The moving party, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., sought to set aside previous orders dismissing its motion for security for costs against the responding party, Active Security and Cable Inc., on the basis of fraud or newly discovered facts under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

Rogers alleged that an erroneous payment of over $876,000 and other newly discovered facts regarding Active Security's financial status warranted setting aside the orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the new evidence would not have likely altered the original decision, which relied primarily on a large CRA debt.

Furthermore, Rogers failed to prove fraudulent concealment and had made a tactical decision not to raise the new evidence during the appeal process.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding a syndicated loan in a failed condominium project, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The court found that the defendants engaged in a litigation strategy of 'delay, deny and obstruct', including failing to disclose documents, refusing to answer questions, and delaying payment of a prior costs award.

Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixing the quantum at $61,000.18.

This decision addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case stemming from a failed condominium project.

The plaintiffs, investors in a syndicated loan secured by a mortgage, sought judgment against the developer and its principal for their investment losses, relying on a contractual guarantee.

The defendants sought to dismiss the action, arguing the guarantee was not binding and the plaintiffs assumed investment risks.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the loan commitment, which included a guarantee from the developer and its principal, was incorporated into the trust agreement governing the syndicated loan.

The court emphasized the trustee's fiduciary duty to enforce the guarantee and allowed the beneficiaries (plaintiffs) to enforce it directly due to the trustee's failure to act.

The court also made adverse inferences against the defendants due to their litigation conduct, including refusal to answer questions and produce witnesses.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by CTO Boost Inc. against a summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement with Idea Notion Development Inc. CTO had repudiated the settlement, claiming fraudulent invoices, after accepting an offer.

The appeal challenged the admissibility of "without prejudice" communications, the motion judge's evidence analysis, the fraudulent misrepresentation defence, and the exercise of discretion.

The Court affirmed the motion judge's findings, holding that "without prejudice" documents were admissible to prove the settlement's existence and that CTO entered the agreement with knowledge of potential discrepancies.

The applicant sought directions at a case conference regarding the respondents' failure to produce bank records as required by a prior court order.

The applicant claimed no statements were produced, while the respondents claimed full compliance.

The court directed the respondents to produce the unredacted bank statements relating to the receipt and disbursement of the funds in issue by a specified date, noting that a judge at a case conference has jurisdiction to make procedural and interlocutory orders under Rule 50.13(6).

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 17, 2020, and to stay an order dated February 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion in a brief endorsement.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached regarding unpaid invoices for software development services.

The defendants repudiated the settlement, arguing it was conditional, induced by duress or fraud, and that prior settlement communications were privileged.

The court found the communications were not privileged as they were necessary to prove the settlement.

The court held that an objective reading of the communications showed a binding agreement on all essential terms, and rejected the defendants' claims of duress and fraud, noting the defendants chose to settle despite having concerns about the invoices.

The motion was granted and the settlement enforced for $200,000.