C. Salazar

The applicant brought an application in Barrie seeking a declaration that a property transfer between the respondent husband and wife in Port Dover was a fraudulent conveyance.

The respondents argued the application was brought in the wrong jurisdiction and should proceed as an action.

The court stayed the proceeding, finding that under Rule 13.1.01(3) the matter relates to a mortgage and must be heard in the Central South Region where the property is located.

The court also directed that the application be converted to an action, as the subjective intent of the parties in transferring the property is a material fact in dispute requiring credibility determinations.

The defendants successfully defended motions for summary judgment brought by the plaintiffs and a co-defendant concerning an aborted real estate transaction.

In determining costs, the court criticized the defendants' disorganized, inefficient, and unnecessarily lengthy approach to the motions, which included filing duplicative materials and excessive authorities.

The defendants sought over $108,000 on a full indemnity basis, which the court found astonishing and unsupported by dockets or settlement offers.

Applying principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $20,000 all-inclusive, payable $14,000 by the plaintiffs and $6,000 by the co-defendant.

The plaintiffs (sellers) and defendants by counterclaim (real estate agents) brought motions for summary judgment regarding an aborted real estate transaction.

The buyers had refused to close after discovering the lot depth was 23% smaller than advertised, claiming they intended to demolish the house and build a larger one.

The sellers argued this intention was fabricated and the mistake did not go to the root of the contract.

The court dismissed the motions for summary judgment, finding that assessing the credibility of the buyer's stated intention required a trial.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction enforcing restrictive covenants in a license agreement with a former licensee operating a mobile sign business.

After the agreement expired, the former licensee allegedly solicited customers and attempted to continue operating under a competing company within the restricted geographic area.

Applying the test from RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada, the court found a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenant was enforceable and had been breached.

The court also found that the diversion of customers and misuse of the plaintiff’s trade name would cause irreparable harm to goodwill and business relations, and that the balance of convenience favoured protection of the plaintiff’s business.

An interim injunction was granted restraining the defendant from operating a competing mobile sign business within the restricted area and from soliciting the plaintiff’s customers pending further review.

The applicant mortgagee brought an interpleader application seeking directions regarding distribution of surplus proceeds from a power of sale after satisfaction of the mortgage and undisputed claims.

Competing claims were made by execution creditors, Legal Aid Ontario under a registered lien, and a party holding a lump sum child support order obtained five days after the closing date of the sale.

The court considered the priority scheme under the Mortgages Act and the Creditors’ Relief Act, as well as authorities addressing timing of encumbrances and support orders.

It held that priority under the Creditors’ Relief Act applies only where a support order exists at the relevant time and cannot retroactively displace encumbrancers whose interests existed at the date of sale.

Because the support order was made after closing, it ranked behind existing execution creditors and liens.