Amanda Jackson

The plaintiff commenced an action claiming beneficial ownership of two properties and seeking restitution for mortgage arrears it paid to stay writs of possession.

The defendant mortgagees moved for summary judgment to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to strike the claim regarding Interest Act violations.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial on unjust enrichment because the plaintiff suffered no deprivation and a prior court order provided a juristic reason for the payments.

The court also struck the Interest Act claim as an abuse of process because it was already being litigated in another proceeding.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The court noted that the plaintiff's conduct lengthened the proceeding and included unnecessary steps.

The court awarded costs to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $23,420.82 for one defendant and $24,743.22 for the other.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his title insurer, FCT, for amounts owing under a policy following a mortgage fraud.

The parties agreed that some amount was owing, leaving only the quantification of interest and coverage of certain fees in dispute.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compound interest as provided in the mortgage, rejecting FCT's argument to substitute statutory interest.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for a notice of sale fee and a lender's fee, finding they were not covered under the policy's terms.

In an addendum to a previous decision granting partial summary judgment and possession to the defendant mortgagee, the court clarified that leave to issue a Writ of Possession was granted pursuant to Rule 60.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also accepted the defendant's calculations of the total amounts outstanding on the two mortgages, including principal and interest, and ordered judgment for those specific amounts, rejecting the plaintiff's attempts to reopen the merits of the motion.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful eviction, compensation for investments in the property, and damages for stolen personal property following a mortgage enforcement and eviction by the respondent.

The court found that the claims for wrongful eviction and mental anguish were barred by res judicata, as they had been previously adjudicated in a related action.

The court also dismissed the claims for property investment and stolen items, finding insufficient evidence to support them and no negligence on the part of the respondent.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

The plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment on two mortgage loans, a line of credit, an overdraft loan, and a credit card.

The defendant, representing himself, raised several defences, including that he had repaid the loan with an EFT requisition, that the contract lacked consideration, and various pseudolegal arguments regarding promissory notes and bills of exchange.

The court found that the EFT requisition was dishonoured and rejected all of the defendant's legal arguments as meritless.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff with substantial indemnity costs.