George Gligoric

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure mortgage action, seeking possession and outstanding debt.

The motion was supported by an affidavit from a mortgage broker rather than the plaintiff himself, and lacked proper accounting of payments the defendants assert were made.

The Associate Justice found the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary burden to establish there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, and dismissed the summary judgment motion.

The decision addresses a motion by Varinder Grewal and Sukhjit Sonia Singh to set aside a 2013 default judgment for a sum owing under a mortgage and for possession of property.

The court reviews the history of the mortgage, the sale of the property, and the conduct of the parties, including the involvement of third parties and prior regulatory and disciplinary findings.

The court finds that the motion was not brought promptly, the defendants lacked a plausible excuse for the default, and there was no arguable defence on the merits.

The motion to set aside the default judgment is dismissed.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Stacey Lee Crawford, declaring her the owner of her former family home and setting aside a default judgment obtained by Veeru Kantoor.

The decision addresses the validity of a second mortgage registered by Dinesh Khanna and Metro Financial Planning Limited, finding that the mortgage amount was altered without Crawford’s consent and that the business practices of Khanna and Metro were essentially illegal.

The court found that the default judgment and subsequent transfer of the property were tainted by fraud and lack of proper accounting, and ordered the property returned to Crawford, with remaining accounting issues to proceed to trial.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking her claim against the City of Hamilton and a bylaw officer for harassment and bad faith.

The Divisional Court found the Deputy Judge erred in concluding the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction, as the appellant was not properly served with the property standards order under the Building Code Act.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as Ontario does not recognize a free-standing civil tort of harassment.

The Plaintiff, Indus Mortgage Inc., brought a motion to set aside a previous order by Master Brott that had vacated a partial judgment in its favour.

The Defendant, Sameera Asif, brought a cross-motion concerning the redemption value of a mortgaged property.

The court found that Master Brott's order was made without proper notice to the Plaintiff and reinstated the original judgment by Master Haberman.

The Defendant's cross-motion was dismissed, as the court lacked jurisdiction to determine the enforceability of Minutes of Settlement, deeming it a substantive contractual issue for a federally-appointed judge.

Costs were awarded to the Plaintiff, payable jointly and severally by Asif and her agent, Azeez.

The applicants sought an order extending the time to complete minutes of settlement and to restrain the defendants from exercising rights to obtain vesting orders.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for a vesting order.

The applicants argued that the defendants' failure to remove outdated MLS listings, which were improperly filed during previous foreclosure proceedings, hindered their ability to sell properties and satisfy the settlement.

The court, exercising its equitable jurisdiction, found that the defendants' improperly maintained listings impeded the applicants' performance.

The court granted the applicants' motion, ordering the removal of the listings and a four-month extension for compliance, with interest continuing to accrue.

The defendants' motion for a vesting order was dismissed.

The applicants (defendants) sought leave to appeal an order that upheld a Master's decision refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay.

The Master had found that while there was inordinate and inexcusable delay creating a presumption of prejudice, the plaintiffs successfully rebutted this presumption by showing that documentary evidence had been preserved and a fair trial was still possible.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or principle in the lower court decisions and refused leave to appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The defendants appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c).

The underlying action involved complex allegations of mortgage fraud against multiple defendants.

The Master had found the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay inadequate but concluded that the presumption of prejudice was partially rebutted and that the balance of factors favoured allowing the action to proceed.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Master's holistic consideration of the relevant factors and dismissed the appeal.

The defendants, Winston Gauntlett Mattis and Fiona Ann Docherty, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action, commenced in 2006, involved allegations of mortgage fraud and solicitor negligence.

The court found that while there was inexcusable delay by the plaintiffs, the presumption of prejudice was partially rebutted regarding documentary evidence.

The motion was dismissed for the plaintiffs represented by counsel, who had recently taken steps to move the action forward, but granted for the unrepresented plaintiffs who failed to respond to the motion.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their counter-claim and awarding $32,000 in costs against them.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellants were denied procedural fairness because the respondent's notice of motion did not seek dismissal of the counter-claim, and the respondent's counsel had explicitly advised the motion judge that such relief was not sought.

The dismissal of the counter-claim was set aside due to this lack of fair notice.

However, the court declined to stay enforcement of the judgment pending the counter-claim's disposition because the lease waived any right to set-off.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against a commercial tenant and its guarantor for unpaid rent and related damages under a lease agreement.

The defendants resisted the motion and sought an order compelling the plaintiff to produce an affidavit of documents, while also advancing a counterclaim alleging that the landlord interfered with a proposed assignment of the lease to new tenants.

The court held that the evidentiary record, including affidavits, cross-examinations, and correspondence, provided a sufficient basis to determine the issues without a trial.

The court rejected the counterclaim, finding the allegation that the landlord’s lawyer discouraged prospective purchasers by misstating arrears lacked evidentiary support.

Summary judgment was granted for the landlord, including damages for arrears and mitigation-adjusted future rent.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were full and comprehensive and that the conclusions were fully supported by the evidence.