4 total
No costs awarded to either party following a successful motion to set aside a default judgment.
Following a successful motion by the defendants to set aside a default judgment on an unpaid mortgage debt due to ineffective service, both parties made written submissions regarding costs.
The self-represented defendants sought $2,600, while the plaintiff sought $1,000.
The court considered the circumstances and determined that a fair and reasonable disposition was to make no order as to costs.
Summary judgment granted to mortgagee for mortgage shortfall under standard mortgage clause following property fire.
The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant insurer to recover the shortfall on a mortgage following a fire at the insured property and a subsequent power of sale.
The insurer denied the claim, arguing the mortgagee was only entitled to the actual cash value of repairs and had failed to file a timely proof of loss.
The court granted summary judgment, holding that the standard mortgage clause created a separate contract between the mortgagee and insurer, entitling the mortgagee to recover its shortfall regardless of the mortgagor's actions or the lack of repairs.
Security for costs denied due to delay, non‑compliance with orders, and counterclaims.
The defendants brought a motion seeking leave and an order requiring a corporate plaintiff to post security for costs in a construction lien action.
Although the court accepted that the defendants had established grounds under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the plaintiff had not proven impecuniosity with sufficient evidence, the court exercised its discretion to refuse security for costs.
The motion had been brought after significant unexplained delay, the defendants had not complied with earlier court-ordered undertakings, and their counterclaims arose from the same facts and were substantially larger than the plaintiff’s claim.
These factors militated against granting security for costs.
The motion was therefore dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; appellants liable on mortgage they signed despite not signing the agreement of purchase and sale.
The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding them liable on a mortgage.
They argued they were not liable because they did not sign the agreement of purchase and sale, although their son directed title to be taken in all three names and they signed the mortgage.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the defence of non est factum was answered by Marvco Colour Research Ltd. v. Harris, and that bald allegations of fraud did not raise a triable issue.
