Eric Nadler

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that required them to pay an additional amount under a collateral mortgage after the principal debt (promissory note) had been paid.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in granting what were, in essence, two separate judgments for the same obligation.

Once the principal debt was paid, the collateral security was spent, and the respondent had no right to claim further under the mortgage.

The appeal was allowed in part, ordering the respondent to repay the additional amount and setting aside the judgment against one of the appellants.

The Plaintiff, having obtained summary judgment, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Defendant failed to file cost submissions.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, determined that while the Plaintiff was entitled to costs as the successful party, the Defendant's conduct did not meet the threshold for substantial indemnity.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $22,509.90, after deducting previously awarded costs.

The Landlord brought a summary judgment motion to terminate the lease of Michele’s Italian Ristorante Inc. due to multiple breaches, including non-payment of rent, failure to remedy fire code deficiencies, and unsatisfactory breakfast service.

Ristorante brought a cross-motion for relief from forfeiture and lease renewal, alleging the Landlord caused its cash flow problems.

The court granted the Landlord's motion, finding Ristorante's breaches serious and deliberate, and dismissed Ristorante's action and cross-motion, concluding there were no grounds for equitable relief from forfeiture.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing two related actions alleging fraudulent conveyances on the basis that the claims were barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs argued that the claims were timely due to discoverability, reliance on another creditor’s ongoing fraudulent conveyance action, and potential application of the Real Property Limitations Act or exceptions for declaratory relief.

The court held that issues of discoverability, whether the relief sought was purely declaratory, whether reliance on the prior action affected limitation analysis, and whether fraudulent concealment occurred all raised genuine issues requiring a trial.

The evidence could support the plaintiffs’ position that the limitation period either had not expired or might not apply.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.