Carrie Kennedy

The defendant Royal Bank of Canada filed a requisition under rule 2.1.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the action.

The court determined under rule 2.1.01(6) that it may be appropriate to make an order dismissing or staying the action, and directed the registrar to give notice to the parties in Form 2.1B.

The endorsement outlines the procedures and timelines for written submissions by the parties in response to the notice, as set out in rules 2.1.01(7) through (10).

The plaintiff, CIBC Mortgages Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Lyle Derlago, seeking payment for amounts owing under a mortgage for which the defendant acted as guarantor.

The defendant argued that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, specifically concerning the plaintiff's alleged negligence in securing and selling the mortgaged property after default, which he claimed reduced its value.

The court found that the defendant's contractual obligation as guarantor was enforceable independently of the plaintiff's actions regarding the property sale.

The court held that the alleged negligence and improvident sale claims were premature as the property had not yet been sold, and such claims could be pursued later.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Following earlier rulings where the plaintiff was substantially successful on a motion, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $7,134.94, while the defendant argued each party should bear their own costs or that the hours claimed were excessive due to overlap with a co-defendant.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed hourly rate and time spent to be reasonable, noting the aggressive approach taken by the defendant.

The court awarded the plaintiff $7,134.94 in costs, to be set off against amounts owed under the mortgage.

Following a summary judgment ruling enforcing a settlement agreement, the parties disputed the calculation of property taxes and the applicable interest rate on the outstanding amount.

The court held that 'property tax' includes water and garbage charges.

The court further held that the original mortgage contract interest rate of 6.45% applies to the outstanding settlement amount, rather than the Courts of Justice Act rates, as the settlement compromised claims under the mortgage but did not intend to provide an interest-free period upon default.

The plaintiff's house was severely damaged by fire shortly after he entered into a settlement agreement with his mortgagee.

The mortgagee had previously placed fire insurance on the property and charged the premiums to the plaintiff.

Following the fire, the mortgagee refused to process an insurance claim, arguing it suffered no direct loss until it took possession and realized on its security.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The court dismissed the mortgagee's motion, finding it had a duty of good faith to process the claim and the plaintiff had standing to enforce this obligation.

The court granted the mortgagee's counterclaim for possession and enforcement of the settlement agreement, directing a process to resolve the outstanding insurance and valuation issues.

The plaintiff, Scotia Mortgage Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment of amounts owing under a mortgage and possession of the property due to the defendant's default.

The defendant, Boris Broz, opposed the motion, raising issues regarding a late reply affidavit, the plaintiff's mortgage arrears policy, and mortgage insurance.

The court found no genuine issues requiring a trial, noting the defendant's undisputed default and the mortgage's maturity.

The motion was granted, ordering the defendant to pay the outstanding mortgage amount and granting a writ of possession to the plaintiff, along with costs.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff bank.

The court considered whether the motion was brought promptly, whether the default had a plausible explanation, and whether the defendant demonstrated an arguable defence on the merits.

The defendant admitted service but explained her failure to respond by reference to involvement in other litigation, which the court held did not constitute a reasonable explanation.

The court further found that the proposed defences relating to alleged loan agreement defaults, account transfers, and excessive costs did not raise arguable issues.

Concluding that the interests of justice did not favour relief, the court dismissed the motion.