Anna C. Johnson

The parties jointly purchased a residential property as tenants in common.

After their relationship ended, the application judge granted an equitable vesting order transferring the appellant's one percent interest to the respondent and ordered compensation.

The appellant appealed the vesting order and compensation.

The respondent registered the vesting order on title before the appeal was heard.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal of the vesting order was moot due to the registration on title and declined to exercise its discretion to hear it.

The court also dismissed the appeal regarding compensation and denied leave to appeal costs.

The applicant tenant brought an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) for the interpretation of a commercial lease to determine whether the 'Net Rentable Area' included two mezzanines.

The respondent landlord argued that the mezzanines should be included based on an architect's certificate and expert evidence of standard commercial practice.

The court held that the plain and grammatical meaning of the lease defined a shell and did not contemplate adding the mezzanine floor area to the calculation.

The court rejected the expert evidence as an attempt to rewrite the contract and found the architect's certificate failed to follow the lease's methodology.

The plaintiff, Vista Mortgage Capital Corporation, sought partial summary judgment for possession of mortgaged property against the defendants, Rachelle Adelle MacSweeney and her spouse Garrett Patrick MacSweeney.

The defendants argued the matter was not appropriate for summary judgment, that not all necessary parties were named, that the mortgage was invalid, and that the Farm Debt Mediation Act (FDMA) applied and had not been complied with.

The court found that summary judgment was appropriate, the correct parties were before the court, and the mortgage was valid.

However, the court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with the FDMA notice requirements before commencing proceedings, rendering the action a nullity.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the claim struck, with no costs awarded.

The appellant appealed an application judge's order dismissing his application for a declaration regarding the allocation of surplus funds from a power of sale.

The application had been dismissed without prejudice to the appellant's right to bring a fresh application with proper notice and evidence.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and thus the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the order determined no substantive rights and was therefore interlocutory.

The appeal was quashed.