Dominic Saverino

The appellant, Joan Holmes, appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondents, Aurelio and Maria Acquaviva, in a mortgage enforcement action.

Holmes had defaulted on a mortgage payment and subsequently alleged an elaborate mortgage fraud against the respondents and others in a separate action.

The motion judge found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that Holmes had not provided evidence to support her fraud claims and that the mortgage claims were severable from her fraud allegations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in his analysis or conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents on a full indemnity scale.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding its failure to remove goods from premises as required by an agreement of purchase and sale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the appellant abandoned the goods by refusing multiple opportunities to remove them, that damages were properly calculated based on lost rent, that the respondent did not fail to mitigate damages, and that the respondent was entitled to forfeit a $100,000 holdback due to the breach.

The court rejected arguments that the Commercial Tenancies Act procedures should apply by analogy and found the respondent acted commercially responsibly in selling the goods at public auction.

The plaintiffs, Amber Lighting Limited and Alka Bhargava, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Rosa Petrozza and Vito Petrozza, seeking $123,500 plus interest.

The dispute arose from a mortgage default, with the core issue being whether the defendants were entitled to these additional funds in priority to the plaintiffs' third mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a prior default judgment by Gray J. had already determined the amount owing under the second mortgage, including the additional funds.

The plaintiffs' attempt to dispute this was deemed a collateral attack on that judgment, which they had not moved to set aside despite being given the opportunity.

Following a civil action concerning a dispute over the proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned house, the plaintiff obtained judgment for a portion of the claimed amount.

The plaintiff then sought costs of the action on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted that although there were settlement discussions, none of the offers complied with Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore did not justify elevated costs.

While the court accepted the reasonableness of the hourly rate and time spent, it considered the claimed amount somewhat high given the value and nature of the dispute.

The court exercised its discretion and awarded reduced partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a civil action seeking her share of proceeds from the sale of a house purchased during a relationship with the defendant.

Although title to the property was registered in the name of a third party who agreed to hold it for them due to financing constraints, the evidence established that the parties jointly funded the purchase and mortgage payments.

The court found that the parties operated in a shared economic partnership and each held a 50% beneficial interest in the property.

The defendant received the sale proceeds but failed to prove deductions he claimed for renovation costs, credit card debts, and alleged expenditures on a property in Ghana.

Judgment was granted for half of the proven net proceeds.