Glenn E. Cohen

The applicant, a second mortgagee, sought to redeem and discharge two first mortgages held by the respondent.

The parties disputed the amounts required to discharge the mortgages.

For the first property, the court allowed the respondent to add $3,000 in legal costs from a separate summary judgment motion to the discharge amount, as permitted by the mortgage terms.

For the second property, the court found that the respondent had made bona fide errors in its initial discharge statement and was therefore not bound to accept the applicant's tendered payment.

Consequently, interest continued to accrue on the mortgage.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in an action arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The defendants, who had agreed to purchase the plaintiffs' home unconditionally, failed to close the transaction, alleging they were induced by a misrepresentation regarding the lot size.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding there was no misrepresentation and that the defendants simply regretted their purchase after a downturn in the real estate market.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for damages representing the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The applicant tenants exercised an option to purchase their rented home, but the respondent landlord refused to complete the sale, alleging the tenants breached the lease by installing an outdoor cat enclosure without written consent.

The court found that the cat enclosure did not constitute a 'renovation' under the lease, meaning no breach occurred.

Alternatively, the court held that even if a breach had occurred, the tenants were entitled to relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, as the breach was minor, the tenants acted reasonably, and the loss of the option would be disproportionate to any harm suffered by the landlord.

The application was granted and the landlord was ordered to convey the property.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order striking out four paragraphs of their Statement of Claim.

The paragraphs alleged that the defendant landlords had general knowledge that counterfeit merchandise was being sold at their flea market.

The Master struck the paragraphs under Rule 25.11, finding them irrelevant and scandalous.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that the law on a landlord's vicarious liability for tenants selling counterfeit goods is unsettled, and it was an error to strike potentially relevant material facts at the pleadings stage.

The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the defendant husband, sought to set aside the purchase and subsequent transfer of a residential property registered primarily in the defendant wife's name.

The court found numerous 'badges of fraud' and rejected the defendants' evidence that the wife solely funded the purchase.

Concluding that the husband contributed substantially to the purchase price through pooled family resources and corporate entities he controlled, the court held that the husband held an undivided one-half interest in the property and that the transfer of his interest to his wife was void as against his creditors under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Following settlement of a mortgage enforcement action, the court determined the appropriate costs payable by the mortgagor to the mortgagee.

The mortgage contained a contractual provision requiring the mortgagor to pay the lender’s legal costs on a solicitor-and-client basis.

The court held that such provisions do not displace the court’s discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Concerns about an inaccurate discharge statement under the Mortgages Act, block-billed legal accounts, and proportionality justified refusing full indemnity costs.

Applying the principles of fairness and reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court reduced the claimed $65,831.32 in costs to $25,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

In a reference to determine the distribution of proceeds from a mortgage sale, the first mortgagee sought to claim increased fees and expenses arising from amending agreements entered into with the mortgagor after the second mortgagee registered its charge.

The court held that the second mortgagee was not bound by the amending agreements, as it had no notice of them at the time of registration.

The first mortgagee was only entitled to claim fees specifically set out in the registered mortgage and standard charge terms.

The increased fees were disallowed and legal fees were reduced.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant to enforce a debt obligation under a promissory note.

The defendant admitted to signing the note and acknowledging the debt but raised a defence of duress during cross-examination, which was not pleaded.

The court applied the full appreciation test under Rule 20 and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant's evidence did not support a finding of operative duress.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the acknowledged debt amount.