Amanda McInnis

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the same reasons given by the motion judge who previously refused to stay enforcement pending appeal.

The court also rejected the appellant's submission regarding title and the respondent's standing, noting the mortgage and its transfer were clearly reflected on the parcel abstract.

The defendant brought a request under Rule 2.1 to stay or dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff failed to file written submissions in response to the court's notice.

The court found the statement of claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it contained no material facts or specifics of the relief claimed, consisting only of a list of terms and a $10 million claim.

The statement of claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The action, commenced in 2018 under simplified procedure rules, had not progressed past the exchange of productions after nearly eight years.

The court applied the four-factor test from Piedrahita v. Costin, finding that while the motion was brought promptly and the defendant suffered no actual prejudice from the delay, the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for abandoning litigation steps for 17 months in favour of settlement discussions, and did not establish inadvertence.

The court held that the values of timeliness and efficiency outweighed the absence of prejudice, and dismissed the motion.

The defendants brought a motion originally seeking mandatory injunctive relief in relation to the plaintiff's sale of their property, which narrowed to a request for disclosure of the property appraisal.

The court acknowledged that while the plaintiff has a legal duty to act in good faith and obtain fair market value on the sale, there is no legal obligation to disclose the appraisal to the mortgagors.

The court found that creating such an obligation would constitute new law with broader policy implications that could not be properly addressed on a brief motion.

The motion was dismissed with costs on a substantial indemnity basis payable within 120 days, extended from the usual 30 days due to the defendants' financial circumstances.

The appellant appealed a Rule 2.01 order dismissing his action concerning the respondent's mortgage.

The court held the action raised no valid issue and found the motion judge's reasons were thorough.

No error warranting appellate intervention was established.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs fixed to the respondent.

The applicant sought relief in a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal the denial of his motion to set aside a default judgment granting enforcement rights to the respondent mortgagee.

The motion was denied on all four relevant considerations: no intention to appeal within the appeal period, unsatisfactory explanation for delay, prejudice to the responding party given the moving party's repeated violations of court orders and illegal repossession of the property, and lack of merit in the proposed grounds of appeal.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment of the outstanding mortgage balance and possession of the property following the defendants' failure to pay after the mortgage matured on May 1, 2024.

The defendants argued the mortgage agreement was unconscionable due to inequality of bargaining power arising from criminal charges they faced, and that they were misled about renewal options.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the mortgage terms were clear and unambiguous, that the criminal charges post-dated the mortgage agreement and therefore could not render it unconscionable, and that unconscionability cannot be used to compel an unwilling party to enter into a new agreement.

The plaintiff, Mihrali Celik, sought repayment of $240,000 USD allegedly taken by the defendants in 1995, along with damages and interest.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, arguing it was the third attempt to litigate the same matter, previously dismissed by two courts and the Court of Appeal.

The court found the claim barred by both issue and cause of action estoppel and as an abuse of process, striking the claim without leave to amend.

Costs of $13,000 were awarded to the defendants.

This costs decision follows a summary judgment motion by Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) against 1108135 Ontario Inc. operating as Trends Décor and Roger Alonzo.

The court apportioned costs after finding the corporate defendant liable for both debts and Mr. Alonzo liable only for the Business Operating Line.

The court fixed costs at $11,475.35, payable jointly and severally by the defendants, after considering the parties’ relative success and the reasonableness of the costs claimed.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, moved for summary judgment against the defendants regarding a Business Operating Line (BOL) and a Visa Credit Card.

The corporate defendant admitted liability, but Roger Alonzo disputed personal liability.

The court found Mr. Alonzo personally liable for the BOL debt but not for the Visa debt, as the evidence did not establish that he agreed to personal liability for the Visa.

The court granted judgment accordingly and addressed costs based on the mixed outcome.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff mortgagee, MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc., against the defendants, Cajetan Jose Fernandes and Maria Dolly Fernandes, for possession of the mortgaged property and payment of the outstanding balance.

The main dispute concerned the validity and enforceability of certain fees and charges levied by the plaintiff, particularly those related to mortgage renewals and default.

The court found that most fees were contractually agreed to and enforceable, except for certain penalties (such as NSF fees) which were found to be unenforceable as penalties under the Interest Act and common law.

The court also found that the summary judgment process was appropriate in this case, as there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

The applicant, Mohammed Mazbah Uddin Bhuiyan, sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) after the respondent, Marissa Gonzales, refused to close a real estate transaction due to insufficient funds to discharge existing mortgages.

The court found that the applicant did not meet the low threshold for a CPL, as the unique features cited related to location rather than the property itself, and the rights of the mortgagee (MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc.)—which had already obtained judgment and a writ of possession—outweighed those of the applicant.

The motion for a CPL was dismissed.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.

These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.

The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to extend time for judicial review, the respondents sought costs.

The underlying dispute involved a failed $250 used car sale, which the applicant escalated into numerous administrative and legal proceedings.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 against the applicant, finding his proceedings to be frivolous and vexatious.

Additionally, the court revoked the applicant's fee waiver under s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act and prohibited him from obtaining further fee waivers in related proceedings without prior judicial permission.

The self-represented applicant sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of multiple administrative tribunal decisions stemming from a failed car sale in 2019.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no merit in the applicant's claims, which were based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and concluding that the applicant failed to prove that the respondents would not suffer prejudice from the five-year delay.

The court also raised concerns that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, and invited submissions on whether the applicant's fee waiver should be cancelled.

Both parties sought an order for anonymization (use of initials/pseudonyms) and a publication ban on identifying information, explicitly not seeking a sealing order.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for various torts including sexual assault and invasion of privacy, stemming from the defendant allegedly taking an intimate photo without consent.

The defendant did not oppose the plaintiff's motion if granted the same relief, but the plaintiff opposed the defendant's motion.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that protecting victims of sexual misfeasance is an important public interest and anonymization was necessary and proportionate to prevent serious risk to her dignity.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, holding that reputational harm from allegations of sexual misconduct does not meet the "important public interest" threshold for anonymization under Sherman Estate, as such interests are personal and private, not affecting human dignity in the same way.

This endorsement concerns three tobacco companies (JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) operating under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

Each applicant sought an extension of their stay period until September 30, 2024, to continue formulating plans of arrangement.

Imperial also requested authorization to terminate a retirement plan and post security for a vaping product license.

RBH sought a procedural amendment for employee grievances.

The court, finding no opposition and satisfied with the applicants' good faith, diligence, and sufficient resources, granted all requested relief, noting significant progress in ongoing mediation.

This endorsement concerns the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted an unopposed motion to extend the stay period until March 29, 2024.

Recognizing the complexity and the four-and-a-half-year duration of negotiations, the court directed the three court-appointed Monitors, in conjunction with the court-appointed Mediator, to collaborate and develop comprehensive Plans of Compromise or Arrangement.

The objective is to finalize plans that are fair and reasonable to all applicants and creditors, moving from observable activity to meaningful action.