A. Jackson

The plaintiff sought summary judgment to declare a mortgage registered by the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) against her matrimonial home a nullity, alleging her signature was forged by her husband.

RBC brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking an equitable charge by subrogation, as the funds advanced under the disputed mortgage were used to pay off the plaintiff's prior valid mortgages with TD Bank.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the forgery allegation required a trial.

However, the court granted RBC's motion in part, awarding an equitable charge of $370,804 for the payoff of one TD mortgage to prevent the plaintiff's unjust enrichment.

The court also granted judgment against the plaintiff for $350,429 for the payoff of a second TD liability, but directed a trial to determine if that prior mortgage had been discharged in error before granting a second equitable charge.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing a claim seeking payment under two 1988 certificates of deposit that allegedly remained unpaid.

The plaintiffs commenced the action in 2011, more than two decades after the certificates matured.

The court held that the certificates constituted demand obligations and promissory notes within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act.

Applying the transitional provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 and the former six‑year limitation period, the court found the claim arose no later than 1988 or 1989 and was therefore long statute‑barred.

The court also held the equitable doctrine of laches applied due to the plaintiffs’ 23‑year delay and resulting prejudice to the defendant.

The applicants and respondents entered into joint venture agreements to invest in commercial real estate projects through jointly owned companies.

The applicants discovered that the respondents were commingling funds, failing to make their required equity contributions, and diverting the applicants' funds to their own personal benefit and to companies they solely owned.

The court found that the respondents breached their contractual and fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

The court imposed constructive trusts over several properties owned by the respondents, appointed a receiver over the respondents' assets, and cancelled the respondents' shares in the jointly owned companies where they had not contributed equity.