FM Sajid Bin Hossain

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing their claim to set aside a mortgage agreement.

The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in proceeding by way of summary judgment and made palpable and overriding errors of fact and law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the appellants adduced no grounds to support their position that summary judgment was inappropriate.

The court noted that all alleged irregularities involved third parties, not the respondent, and that the appellants admitted knowing they were signing a mortgage with no mistake as to its nature.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

A defendant sought to vary a Mareva injunction and Norwich order granted in connection with allegations of a fraudulent scheme involving the misappropriation of public funds earmarked for homelessness relief.

The defendant sought to exclude future income from the Mareva Order's scope, obtain monthly releases for living expenses and a one-time release for outstanding debts, remove the passport surrender requirement, and remove a phone number from the Norwich Order.

The court dismissed all aspects of the motion, finding the defendant had not met the required test for varying the Mareva Order due to lack of full and frank disclosure, and that the passport requirement and Norwich Order remained appropriate given the circumstances.

The appellant initiated an application seeking various reliefs concerning his parents' guardianship and property, including removing an attorney and an accounting for alleged undue influence.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant abandoned key challenges, including those related to powers of attorney and capacity.

The application judge dismissed the remaining claims, finding no live issues or cognizable causes of action.

The appellant appealed, arguing errors in the dismissal and the costs order, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the abandoned claims left no relevant issues for adjudication and upheld the discretionary costs order.

The appellants, purchasers of a new home, appealed an order declaring they repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale by failing to close and dismissing their counter-application for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusions.

The lower court correctly found that the vendor satisfied the requirements to extend the closing date due to "Unavoidable Delay" (COVID-19 related), was not obligated to deliver the occupancy permit before closing, and did not act in bad faith by refusing a further extension.

The appellate court affirmed the application judge's interpretation of the agreement and factual findings, noting they were entitled to deference.