Chris Shorey

Two applications were brought regarding the validity of a $689,000 mortgage registered against two properties owned by the applicant.

The estate of the deceased chargee claimed the mortgage was valid and secured funds allegedly stolen by the applicant's parents, while the applicant claimed she never authorized or knew about the mortgage and that her signature was forged.

The court found that material facts surrounding the execution of the mortgage were in dispute, requiring findings of credibility and potentially expert evidence.

Consequently, the court adjourned the applications and directed that the issues proceed to trial pursuant to Rule 38.10(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Two applications were brought regarding the validity of a $689,000 mortgage registered against two properties owned by the applicant.

The estate of the deceased chargee claimed the mortgage was valid and secured funds allegedly stolen by the applicant's parents, while the applicant claimed she never authorized or knew about the mortgage and that her signature was forged.

The court found that material facts surrounding the execution of the mortgage were in dispute, requiring findings of credibility and potentially expert evidence.

Consequently, the court adjourned the applications and directed that the issues proceed to trial pursuant to Rule 38.10(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Essar Capital Limited and USW Local 2251 brought motions within a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

Essar Capital sought to re-open the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) and compel the disclosure of information to Essar Global for a potential bid.

Local 2251 sought court advice on engaging in discussions with Ontario Steel Investments Ltd. regarding potential transactions.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no basis to interfere with the established SISP, noting Essar Global's prior failure to demonstrate financial capability and the lack of a formal bid from Ontario Steel.

The court emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the court-ordered process and avoid delays detrimental to the restructuring.

The plaintiff brought a second motion for default judgment seeking damages, an injunction, and recovery of decontamination equipment from a former licensee.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to exercise its contractual option to repurchase the equipment, meaning the defendant lawfully owned it.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's attempt to restrict the defendant's use of the equipment based on vague intellectual property claims over 'know-how'.

As the plaintiff's claims for conversion, passing off, and unjust enrichment were premised on the erroneous assumption that the defendant could not use the equipment, and no concrete evidence of actual damages was provided, the balance of the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to stay the defendant's motion to set aside a default judgment until the defendant paid outstanding costs orders and posted security for costs.

The defendant had made an assignment in bankruptcy, staying the enforcement of pre-bankruptcy costs orders.

The only remaining costs order, made by a registrar in bankruptcy, was under appeal.

The court held that the appeal automatically stayed the registrar's costs order under Rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

As no costs were currently payable, the plaintiff's motion for a stay and security for costs was dismissed.