The moving party, a mortgagee, sought leave to issue a writ of possession after obtaining summary judgment for the debt owing and an order for vacant possession.
The self-represented responding party opposed the motion, alleging violations of his Charter rights due to a delay in receiving a French translation of the summary judgment decision and alleged surveillance by the mortgagee.
The court granted the motion, finding that the notice requirements under Rule 60.10 were satisfied.
The court dismissed the Charter claims, holding that the Charter does not apply to private litigation and that the right to a translated decision arises from the Courts of Justice Act, not the Charter.
