David Tepelenas

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to post $66,670 as security for costs pending the trial of their counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal raised the issue of jurisdiction, noting that orders for security for costs are interlocutory, not final.

The appellants argued the order was final in substance because they could not afford to pay it, which would end the litigation.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the legal nature of the order, not its practical effect, determines whether it is interlocutory or final.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment of the outstanding mortgage balance and possession of the property following the defendants' failure to pay after the mortgage matured on May 1, 2024.

The defendants argued the mortgage agreement was unconscionable due to inequality of bargaining power arising from criminal charges they faced, and that they were misled about renewal options.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the mortgage terms were clear and unambiguous, that the criminal charges post-dated the mortgage agreement and therefore could not render it unconscionable, and that unconscionability cannot be used to compel an unwilling party to enter into a new agreement.