Amanda Jane Jackson

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage on the defendant's principal residence in Etobicoke after the defendant defaulted on payments.

The defendant, a self-represented licensed real estate professional, opposed the motion arguing the bank's affiant should testify at trial, the mortgage was unconscionable due to lack of independent legal advice, the balance of convenience favoured a six-month stay, and leniency was warranted.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, rejected the unconscionability argument given the defendant's real estate expertise and the standard nature of the transaction, declined to impose a stay, and held the defendant had not established a basis to deny the requested relief.

Summary judgment was granted with costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

This is a supplementary endorsement addressing the requirements for issuing a writ of possession under Rule 60.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court clarified that when a moving party seeks leave to issue a writ of possession on an ex parte basis after judgment has been issued, "sufficient notice of the proceeding" requires that all occupants receive full particulars of the judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff's template Notice Demanding Possession was deficient because it failed to attach a copy of the judgment and was ambiguous regarding whether judgment had actually been obtained, leaving occupants uncertain about their obligation to vacate or right to seek relief.

The applicant, Hazelton Homes Corporation, initiated two applications seeking declarations of trust over two properties held by Morteza Katebian, among other relief.

Katebian and other respondents opposed, with Katebian also seeking consolidation and conversion of the applications into an action.

The court consolidated the applications but found significant material facts in dispute, including allegations of criminal activity and conflicting handwriting expert evidence regarding trust agreements.

Consequently, the court ordered the consolidated applications to proceed to trial, converting them into an action, and scheduled a case management conference.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against a mortgage broker and lender.

The appellant sought to refinance commercial properties he believed were worth $1.2 million with a $600,000 mortgage.

Two appraisers declined to complete appraisals at the requested valuation.

The lender eventually provided an appraisal showing a value of $600,000-$665,000 and offered revised financing of $390,000, which the appellant rejected.

The motion judge found no cause of action because the property was owned by a corporation, not the appellant, and no damages were caused by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial and dismissing the appeal with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision granting the respondent bank judgment for amounts owing on a line of credit, overdraft lending agreement, and two Visa cards.

The motion judge also dismissed the appellants' counterclaim and awarded substantial indemnity costs of $60,000 to the bank.

The appellants raised various arguments including delay in bringing the action, the impact of double mortgage payments, Charter rights, and procedural issues.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in any of the appellants' arguments and dismissed the appeal.

The defendants, 3877337 Canada Inc. (HLC Home Loans Canada) and Home Trust Company, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages related to a failed mortgage refinancing.

The plaintiff, Vito Auciello, alleged breach of contract, bad faith, and other claims, arguing that the defendants caused delays and used unqualified appraisers, leading to the failure of the financing.

The court found that the action was improperly constituted as the claim belonged to the corporation (Network Cash Mart Ltd.) that owned the property, not the individual plaintiff.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to support his claims, including damages or alternative appraisals, and did not satisfy the conditions of the mortgage commitment.

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

In a mortgage enforcement proceeding resolved by summary judgment, the court determined the quantum of costs after prior entitlement to substantial indemnity costs had already been established by contract.

The court applied Rule 57 reasonableness principles, considered proportionality against the judgment amount, and weighed litigation conduct including repeated settlement opportunities and delay-related behaviour.

Although the court accepted that the matter was not unusually sophisticated and reduced the effective hourly allowance, it found most work and disbursements reasonable and necessary.

The court rejected objections that Notice of Sale costs required a separate assessment process under the Mortgage Act and fixed total costs in a reduced but substantial amount payable by the responding party.

Following the granting of summary judgment and a writ of possession in favour of a mortgagee, the court addressed the outstanding issue of costs.

The defendants had resisted the summary judgment motion by raising issues that had previously lapsed or were not pursued, resulting in unnecessary prolongation of the proceeding.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering the mortgage covenant, the court determined that costs should be awarded on a substantial indemnity basis due to the defendants’ vexatious and unnecessary conduct.

After reviewing the plaintiff’s revised cost outline and adjusting for certain excessive or premature billing items, the court fixed costs at $13,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a residential mortgage following the mortgagor’s default and sought payment of the outstanding balance, possession of the property, and dismissal of a counterclaim.

The borrower argued that the lender failed to honour a three‑month payment holdback allegedly promised during refinancing and asserted defences including misrepresentation, non est factum, and equitable set‑off.

The court found that the mortgage commitment permitted changes to the holdback if the borrower’s financial representations were inaccurate and concluded that insufficient funds existed to fund the holdback because of undisclosed arrears and higher debts.

The record demonstrated the borrower knew the holdback was unavailable and had multiple opportunities to cure the default but failed to do so.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring trial under Rule 20 and dismissed the counterclaim.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment after depositing over $400,000 into the defendants’ joint account based on the mistaken belief that a mortgage had been registered to secure the advance.

During submissions, the plaintiff relied on theories including unjust enrichment, equitable subrogation, and estoppel.

The responding party argued these causes of action had not been pleaded and that granting judgment on that basis would be procedurally unfair.

The court held that the pleadings should first be amended to properly reflect the legal basis of the claim and allow the defendant to respond.

The motion was adjourned with directions requiring amended pleadings, completion of undertakings, and supplementary materials before the continuation of the summary judgment motion.