A. Sidhu

The plaintiff brought an action claiming 100% beneficial ownership of a family property that had been transferred multiple times among family members and ultimately sold to a third-party corporation.

The plaintiff sought to set aside the sale as a fraudulent conveyance.

The court found that the plaintiff and his father were equal 50% beneficial owners of the property.

The court declined to set aside the sale, finding the third-party corporation was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The court ordered the plaintiff's parents to pay him 50% of the net sale proceeds under a constructive trust.

All counterclaims were dismissed.

The non-parties, who occupied the subject property, brought an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee against the defendant mortgagor.

The non-parties relied on Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the non-parties lacked standing to rely on Rule 21.01(3) as they were not defendants in the mortgage action.

The court also declined to set aside the order granting the Writ of Possession, noting the request was not properly before the court and constituted an impermissible collateral attack.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchasers for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendants failed to obtain mortgage financing after the third-party bank's appraisal flagged potential issues with the property.

The defendants did not file responding materials.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the defendants breached the unconditional agreement of purchase and sale.

The court awarded damages to the plaintiff and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim and third-party claims.

Applying recent appellate authority, the court ordered the defendants' deposit to be credited towards the damages awarded.

The applicant private lender brought an application seeking a declaration of an equitable mortgage or damages, alleging the respondent borrower breached a mortgage contract by not accepting funds.

The respondent argued the applicant breached the contract by failing to confirm funds were available.

The court found that material facts were in dispute and credibility issues could not be resolved on the paper record.

Pursuant to Rule 38.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court ordered a trial to determine who breached the mortgage contract and converted the application into an action.

The applicant private lender brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against two properties owned by the respondent, claiming an equitable mortgage after a mortgage transaction failed to close.

Although the court found a triable issue regarding the equitable mortgage claim, it dismissed the motion on equitable grounds.

The court reasoned that the applicant had no intended use for the properties, the properties were not unique, and the alternative claim for damages would be an adequate and easily calculable remedy.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of $189,016.95 obtained by the respondents on their counterclaim.

The underlying dispute involved vendor take-back mortgages related to the purchase of a restaurant, where the moving party alleged the funds were never actually advanced.

Applying the five-part test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found that the delay in bringing the motion was not fatal, there was a plausible excuse for the default, and the moving party had an arguable defence on the merits.

The court concluded that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the default judgment and awarded costs to the moving party.

The defendant moved to pay funds into court to discharge a construction lien registered against her property.

She sought to reduce the amount payable into court on the basis that the plaintiff’s lien claim was deficient.

The court held that a reduction under s. 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act requires clear and unequivocal proof that the lien is excessive or improper.

On the motion record, the court was unable to assess the strength of the parties’ cases and found the required evidentiary threshold had not been met.

The motion was therefore dismissed, leaving the defendant free to seek discharge of the lien by paying the required amount into court under the statute.