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 moving party, Hazelton Homes Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Faieta J. dated May 28, 2020 and June 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

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.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a costs decision issued two and a half years after his action was dismissed on summary judgment.

He argued the delay caused him injustice and that the costs were too high.

The Court of Appeal denied an adjournment and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the costs decision was conventional, the amounts were not disproportionate, and the delay itself did not constitute an error in principle.

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 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 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.

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.

The bank obtained summary judgment against the appellant for amounts owing on loan facilities.

The motion judge who granted the summary judgment had previously conducted a pre-trial conference in the same proceeding.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the motion judge was prohibited from hearing the summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that Rules 50.09 and 50.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure must be read as prohibiting a judge who conducts a pre-trial conference from presiding on a summary judgment motion without the written consent of the parties.

The appellant bank held a mortgage on a condominium owned by the respondent, who defaulted.

After default, the respondent leased the property to another respondent on highly favourable terms.

The bank applied under s. 52 of the Mortgages Act to set aside the tenancy.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding a conflict between s. 52 of the Mortgages Act and the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there is no conflict because setting aside a tenancy agreement under the Mortgages Act means the tenancy never existed, whereas terminating a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act brings a valid tenancy to an end.

The moving party, who was in significant default on two mortgages held by the responding party, sought an urgent stay of a writ of possession pending her appeal of a summary judgment order.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion.

The court found no serious question to be determined, as the moving party admitted to substantial arrears and her arguments regarding technical defects in the eviction notice and lack of notice to her adult children under Rule 60.10(2) were without merit.

The court also found no irreparable harm and held that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the responding party, given the lack of payments for over four years.

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 mortgagee moved for partial summary judgment for possession of residential property and for declarations of amounts owing under two mortgages.

Relying on admissions made by the plaintiff in written answers to undertakings following discovery, the court held the admissions were clear and definite, raised no serious issue of fact or law, and satisfied the no genuine issue for trial standard under Rules 51.06 and 20.

Applying the modern summary judgment framework, the court found it could fairly and justly determine the admitted indebtedness without a trial.

Judgment was granted for the admitted mortgage amounts with contractual interest, together with leave to issue a writ of possession and substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant, a former estate trustee, appealed a summary judgment granted in a mortgage action against the estate.

The appellant argued the mortgage should be set aside under the Family Law Act as the property was a matrimonial home.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant lacked standing as he was no longer an estate trustee and was not sued in his personal capacity.

Furthermore, the court upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant failed to prove the mortgagee had actual or constructive notice that the mortgagor was a spouse and the property was a matrimonial home.

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 appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering her to pay $355,241.08 pursuant to a mortgage and granting leave to issue a writ of possession.

The appellant argued the respondent failed to provide a statement of arrears and that her spouse should have been added as a party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments and noting that the appellant had never made a single mortgage payment and appeared to have engaged in a complete scam.

The appellant owed the respondent bank approximately $275,000 on various accounts and defaulted.

The bank obtained summary judgment.

The appellant appealed, arguing he had paid the debt by presenting an instrument drawn on an account with no funds, which the bank mistakenly credited before it was dishonoured.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial as the debt had not been paid.