Amanda Deveaux

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Bemco Financial Services Ltd., for a deficiency on a mortgage loan after a power of sale.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the sale price, accounting for rents, management fees, property taxes, or real estate commissions.

The court disallowed a three-month interest penalty as a prohibited penalty under the Interest Act, but otherwise accepted the plaintiff’s accounting and entitlement to the deficiency.

The Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment due to a mortgage default by the Defendants.

The motion was previously adjourned on consent with terms for the Defendants to refinance, but they failed to comply.

The court applied the Hryniak v. Mauldin test for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the mortgage principal, interest, and various fees, including liquidated damages, which were found not to violate s. 8(1) of the Interest Act.

An order for possession of the property and leave to issue a writ of possession were granted.

The court declined to award additional costs to the Plaintiffs, noting that the liquidated damages clause already compensated them for the costs of bringing the motion.

The plaintiff sued for unpaid costs and a management fee related to a home renovation project.

The Master found a cost-plus contract existed but denied the management fee, awarding the plaintiff $31,556.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 54.09 opposing the confirmation of the Master's report.

The Superior Court found the Master made a palpable and overriding error in concluding a contract existed, as there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms.

The court set aside the Master's report and awarded the plaintiff $106,060.19 on a quantum meruit basis for services rendered.

The plaintiff estate trustee brought an action regarding the proceeds from the sale of a property jointly developed by the deceased and the defendant, her former common-law partner.

The defendant relied on a cohabitation agreement that provided property division would be determined solely by legal ownership.

The plaintiff relied on a subsequent oral property development agreement, confirmed in writing by the defendant, that provided for the return of investments and equal sharing of profits.

The court found that neither party understood the cohabitation agreement to apply to their property development activities and set it aside in part under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court awarded the plaintiff $3,145,682.88 based on the property development agreement.