Chris E. Reed

The applicant, Claudio Posocco, sought a declaration that his guarantee for a mortgage was discharged.

This application was a re-hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal, based on fresh evidence of a foreclosure judgment obtained by a prior mortgagee.

Posocco argued that the foreclosure extinguished his guarantee for a junior mortgage.

The court dismissed the application, distinguishing the facts from *Rushton v. Industrial Development Bank* by noting that the mortgages were distinct, not a single mortgage encompassing multiple parcels.

Relying on *Isman v. Sinnott*, the court held that foreclosure of a first mortgage by a party who also held a junior mortgage did not extinguish the rights under the junior mortgage's covenant.

Additionally, the court found that the guarantee's contractual terms explicitly made Posocco liable as a principal debtor even in the event of prior foreclosure, and that the property had not yet been disposed of, leaving open the potential for reconveyance.

Application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award made in Shanghai arising from unpaid amounts for parts and moulds supplied under international commercial agreements.

The respondent argued it had been unable to present its defence on alleged double recovery, that enforcement would offend Ontario public policy, and that part of the award concerning moulds was beyond the arbitration agreement.

The court held that the respondent had notice and full opportunity to present its case, that the public policy defence is narrow and not engaged, and that the mould dispute fell within the arbitral jurisdiction.

Recognition and enforcement were granted, with agreed costs to the applicant.

The purchaser sought partial summary judgment declaring an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property enforceable and claiming damages for breach when the vendors refused to close.

The vendors argued the agreement should be rectified to reflect that the sale was conditional on the simultaneous purchase of an adjacent property and further argued the purchaser failed to provide notice of waiver of conditions in accordance with the contract.

The court held that the vendors failed to meet the demanding test for rectification based on unilateral mistake because there was no convincing proof of a prior precise oral agreement and no conduct equivalent to fraud by the purchaser.

However, the purchaser’s waiver of conditions was ineffective because the agreement required personal service of notice and the contract’s entire‑agreement clause precluded waiver by conduct.

As a result, the agreement was never completed according to its terms and could not be enforced.

The court considered a motion by a court-appointed receiver seeking approval of professional fees incurred during a complex receivership investigation.

The receivership arose after the judgment debtor engaged in extensive efforts to conceal assets through individuals and corporate entities in order to avoid enforcement of a judgment owed to a former spouse.

The receiver, counsel, and forensic investigator undertook substantial asset tracing and recovery efforts that resulted in over $2 million being realized for the estate.

The court found the professional fees reasonable and necessary given the complexity of the concealment and the extensive investigative work required.

The motion to approve the professional fees was granted.

A court-appointed receiver brought a motion seeking approval of settlements reached in efforts to enforce a substantial family law judgment and recover assets allegedly concealed by the respondent.

The receiver also sought approval of significant professional fees incurred during forensic investigations and asset recovery.

The court approved certain settlements and ordered an immediate distribution to the judgment creditor but adjourned the determination of professional fees and related matters to future hearings.

The court emphasized concerns that professional fees could significantly reduce the creditor’s ultimate recovery and directed that no further fee payments be made pending further consideration.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision interpreting a protective installations clause in a commercial lease.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the tenant was responsible for the costs of work required by a municipal authority, as the work comprised additions or alterations for the security of the tenant and its employees.

The court noted that under the lease, the tenant was required to satisfy itself that the premises were fit for occupation before entering into the lease.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application regarding property ownership.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was no evidence the respondent owned or paid for the property.

The court also upheld the costs order, noting the appellant pursued the application even after learning of the bankruptcy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that the parties had entered into a binding settlement agreement.

The appellants argued that no agreement was reached, that the respondent accepted their repudiation of the agreement, and that conflicting affidavit evidence required the trial of an issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that a binding settlement was reached and that the respondent had not accepted the repudiation.

The court also held that the application judge did not err in failing to order the trial of an issue, as neither party had requested one.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order staying its Ontario proceedings to realize on security, pending the outcome of related litigation in New York.

The motion judge had found that the controlling mind of the moving party was also the controlling mind of a joint venture partner accused of misappropriating funds in the New York action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflict with prior decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion to stay the proceedings.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that the deceased misappropriated $547,000 in trust monies and tracing those funds into the purchase of a house.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the house was fully purchased with the misappropriated funds and was therefore held in trust for the respondents.

The Court also rejected the appellants' arguments regarding laches, limitation periods, and adverse possession, dismissing the appeal.