Gathyayini Manoharan

The plaintiff mortgagor brought an urgent interlocutory motion to set aside a Notice to Vacate and a default judgment obtained by the defendant mortgagee.

The mortgagor argued the mortgage was unenforceable because the funds were used to pay out prior mortgages that were part of a money laundering scheme orchestrated by her pastor, of which she was unaware.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the default judgment, finding no arguable defence on the merits, no plausible excuse for the default, and no evidence that the mortgagee was involved in or should have been aware of any alleged fraud or money laundering.

As the default judgment stood, the injunction motion was also dismissed.

This summary trial decision concerns a failed real estate transaction.

The court found that the defendant, Qura Tul Ain, breached a binding agreement to purchase the plaintiff Ammar Ahmad’s home.

The court rejected the defendant’s arguments and crossclaim against her real estate brokerage, finding no evidence of bad faith, concealment, or breach of fiduciary duty.

Damages were awarded to the plaintiff for the difference in sale price, carrying costs, repairs, legal fees, and rental costs, but not for moving expenses or real estate commission.

The total damages awarded were $386,460.60.

Anbros Financial Inc., a broker, sought summary judgment for an $88,000 brokerage fee from 2528367 Ontario Inc. and its guarantors.

Anbros procured a loan commitment from Firm Capital Corporation (FCC) for a construction project, but the defendants did not proceed.

The defendants argued the Letter of Intent (LOI) was not binding and that the procured commitment was not substantially in accordance with the LOI.

The court found the LOI to be a binding agreement and that the defendants, by signing a subsequent Letter of Interest with FCC, had accepted the modified terms, making the broker fee payable upon issuance of the commitment.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments, finding their rejection disingenuous and a tactic to avoid payment.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of Anbros for $88,000.

The plaintiff, Janet Bowie, sought summary judgment against the defendants, Ramesh Bhandari and Sudha Dhungana, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendants admitted liability and damages but argued against summary judgment due to ongoing third- and fourth-party claims and sought a stay of execution.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding no genuine issue for trial in the main action and that it was severable from the third-party claims.

The court also denied the defendants' request for a stay of execution, citing lack of connection between the claims, no risk of inconsistent findings, and prejudice to the plaintiff.

The applicants sought to appoint a receiver over a commercial property due to an alleged default on a third mortgage.

The respondents brought a counter-application arguing the mortgage was void or unenforceable due to material alterations, lack of independent legal advice, and unconscionability.

The court found the mortgage valid and enforceable, rejecting the respondents' arguments.

However, the court disallowed several fees claimed by the applicants, determining the actual amount secured by the mortgage.

Finding sufficient equity in the property to satisfy the debt, the court dismissed the application to appoint a receiver, without prejudice to future applications if the debt remains unpaid.

Two consolidated appeals arising from a family law proceeding between parents concerning custody and access to their child.

The respondent appealed an order dismissing a recusal application against a judge, and the appellant appealed an order denying leave to amend pleadings to seek custody.

The court found the case had become a procedural morass characterized by lack of good faith efforts to resolve issues.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The court emphasized that the appellant had pursued indirect procedural tactics rather than direct routes of review, and that the custody issue had been finally determined by a subsequent order that was not appealed.