Jeffrey Christopher Kukla

The moving parties, Paige Power and Darcy Dixon, sought an extension of time to file their notice of appeal after missing the deadline by about an hour due to being unaware of the 4:00 p.m. court day cutoff.

The Court of Appeal considered the relevant factors for an extension, found no prejudice to the respondent, and noted confusion in the underlying proceedings involving multiple actions and applications.

The court required the respondent to provide an explanatory statement of all pending matters and granted the extension, allowing the notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days of receiving the statement.

The Royal Bank of Canada sought default judgment for possession of a mortgaged property after the defendants, the Estate of Morrison Augustin and Bridget Daniel, failed to defend the proceeding.

The court found the plaintiff had established liability based on deemed admissions and affidavit evidence, and granted an order for possession of the property, as well as costs to be assessed.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, sought summary judgment against the defendants for defaulted loans and enforcement of a mortgage.

The court found that the defendants did not dispute the debts but requested more time to pay.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, including substantial indemnity costs.

The judgment details the amounts owing under various credit facilities and the applicable interest rates.

The appellant appealed four summary judgments granted against him for various debts (mortgages, lines of credit, credit card).

The appellant's arguments, consistent with "pseudolegal" theories, asserted that he was not subject to Canadian law by attempting to separate himself from his legal personhood.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that no legally tenable defence was advanced.

The court reiterated that such arguments consistently fail and consume court resources.

The court also confirmed the admissibility of the bank's business records under the Evidence Act.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought a motion to pay the net proceeds from a power of sale of a property into court.

The defendant, Guy Lafond, and his former partner, Sherri Van de Hoef, along with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), claimed entitlement to these funds, primarily for child support arrears.

The court determined the amounts owed to each party and established the priority of claims, with FRO and Ms. Van de Hoef's claims (including costs) taking precedence over RBC's remaining claim.

Due to Mr. Lafond's conduct in disputing the claims and causing adjournments without taking suggested steps, he was ordered to pay the costs of the other parties.

The funds in court were insufficient to fully satisfy all claims, leaving Mr. Lafond personally liable for the deficiency owed to RBC.

This decision addresses costs following a successful summary judgment motion by the Royal Bank of Canada against the defendants for mortgage default.

The court considered the mortgage's contractual provision for "reasonable and necessary costs" and applied the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants' conduct, including a complicating cross-motion and late-raised issues, increased the plaintiff's legal expenses.

The court found the plaintiff's costs outline largely reasonable, making a minor adjustment for delegation.

The final award was $18,000, to be paid jointly and severally by both defendants, emphasizing their shared responsibility for the debt and enforcement costs despite internal disputes.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order dismissing their action against TD Bank and Primmum Insurance, which alleged breach of fiduciary duty related to property insurance and mortgage renewal.

They also sought leave to appeal substantial indemnity costs orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the summary judgment appeal, finding no fiduciary duties were owed, the action was res judicata, and statute-barred.

The costs appeal was also dismissed, as the fresh evidence of a settlement offer was inadmissible and had no bearing on the correctness of the costs award.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion in a mortgage enforcement matter.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis as per the mortgage terms.

The self-represented defendant, a real estate agent, failed to file responding submissions.

The court found no reason to depart from the agreed contractual terms for costs, noting the defendant's sophistication and conduct which caused delays.

The court found the costs sought to be reasonable and fully supported, and awarded costs to the plaintiff in the amount of $22,553.40.

The appellants appealed an order granting summary judgment to Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) in three actions, dismissing their counterclaim, granting RBC possession of premises, and vacating certificates of pending litigation (CPLs).

The appellants sought to overturn the dismissal of their counterclaim and stay the judgments, arguing that the motion judge erred in finding no genuine issue for trial regarding their counterclaim for damages related to the CPLs.

They also sought to adduce new evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's determination that the counterclaim lacked sufficient evidence of quantifiable damages and that the new evidence did not meet the test for admission on appeal.

Hazelton Homes Corporation (Plaintiff) claimed beneficial ownership of two properties registered to Morteza Katebian, who had defaulted on mortgages held by Home Trust Company and Ivan Terziev and Elena Mechtcheriakova (Second Mortgagees).

Following the conversion of applications into an action, the defendants (Katebian, Payam, Home Trust, and Second Mortgagees) moved for security for costs against Hazelton.

The court found good reason to believe Hazelton's claim against Home Trust and the Second Mortgagees was frivolous and vexatious, and that Hazelton, a shell corporation, had insufficient assets.

The motion for security for costs was granted for Home Trust and the Second Mortgagees, with specific amounts ordered to be paid into court or credited from existing holdbacks.

Katebian and Payam's motion for security for costs was adjourned pending their delivery of a Statement of Defence.

The appellant mortgagor brought an urgent motion before the Court of Appeal seeking an extension of time to appeal a default judgment and a stay of enforcement of a writ of possession.

The default judgment, which determined the amount owing on the mortgage and the mortgagee's right to possession, was issued in February 2019, and a motion to set it aside was dismissed in July 2019.

The mortgagor had unlawfully re-occupied the property after the writ of possession was first enforced.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding no intention to appeal within the relevant period, substantial and unexplained delay, significant prejudice to the mortgagee, and no arguable merit to the appeal.

The court also found no serious issue to be tried regarding the stay, given the conclusive determination of the mortgage amount and the mortgagor's conduct.

The plaintiffs, Dominic and Scarlett Perodeau, sued TD Canada Trust (the Bank) and Primmum Insurance Company (misnomered as TD Insurance) for breach of fiduciary duty following a house fire and uninsured property.

The plaintiffs alleged Primmum breached a fiduciary duty to the Bank regarding home insurance and that the Bank breached a fiduciary duty to them by failing to caution them about the lack of insurance upon mortgage renewal.

Both defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court found no fiduciary duty existed between Primmum and the Bank, nor between the Bank and the plaintiffs, as their relationship was purely commercial.

The court also held that the plaintiffs' claims against the Bank were barred by res judicata, as the issues were previously litigated or ought to have been, and were statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

Furthermore, the claims against Primmum failed due to the effective termination or lapse of the insurance policy.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims against both defendants.

The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' action based on alleged fiduciary duties related to home insurance and mortgage renewal.

This endorsement addresses the defendants' claims for costs.

TD Canada Trust was awarded full indemnity costs of $19,035 based on contractual terms in the mortgage.

TD Insurance was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $13,840 for the motion due to the plaintiffs' unreasonable conduct in failing to provide evidence, and partial indemnity costs for the action.

The court adjusted claimed fees and disbursements for both defendants, disallowing duplication of effort, unidentified timekeepers, travel costs, and excessive process server expenses.

The plaintiff, Luigi Ruffolo, sued The Toronto-Dominion Bank for negligence, breach of contract, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging an improvident sale of his property under power of sale in 2002.

The Bank brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred by the Limitations Act.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered his claim on April 27, 2009, when he received the Bank's sale file, and therefore the two-year limitation period expired on April 27, 2011, well before the action was commenced on August 18, 2017.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed as limitation-barred.

The Royal Bank of Canada brought a motion for summary judgment seeking possession of a property, leave to issue a writ of possession, and dismissal of a counterclaim by Shila Dabirinejad.

Ms. Dabirinejad, the spouse of the property's sole registered owner, Ali Sharafdin, argued that the bank knew or ought to have known she was Mr. Sharafdin's spouse and that her consent was not obtained for a charge registered on the property, which she claimed was the matrimonial home.

The court found that the bank had no actual or constructive knowledge of Ms. Dabirinejad's spousal status at the time the charge was registered, rejecting her evidence of a "chance meeting" with a bank employee.

The court concluded that the bank was entitled to rely on Mr. Sharafdin's representations that he was not a spouse and that the charge was valid.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and Ms. Dabirinejad's counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for mortgage and credit card debt.

The defendants largely unopposed the debt and counterclaim dismissal but contested the order for possession and costs.

The court granted summary judgment for the debt and dismissed the counterclaim, finding no genuine issue for trial.

An order for possession was granted, but its effect was stayed until October 30, 2018, to allow the defendants to finalize new financing.

The court also fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis at $18,000, reducing the plaintiff's requested amount due to excessive billing for certain tasks.

The applicant, a commercial tenant, sought relief from forfeiture after the mortgagee, Home Trust, sought to terminate its tenancy following the owner's mortgage default.

The court determined that the original lease was not binding on the mortgagee.

It found that a year-to-year tenancy existed between the parties, not a month-to-month tenancy as argued by the mortgagee, and that the termination notice based on unsafe conditions was not immediately effective.

Relief from forfeiture was denied as the termination right stemmed from the nature of the year-to-year tenancy, not a breach by the tenant.

The court ruled that the tenancy could be terminated on October 31, 2018, based on the six-month notice given.

The appellants brought a motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

No one appeared on behalf of the appellants at the hearing.

The motion was dismissed as abandoned.

Costs were awarded to the Toronto-Dominion Bank on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $6,749.67, and to Aping Co. Ltd. on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $300 plus applicable taxes.

Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought summary judgment for possession of a property and dismissal of a counterclaim against Waheed Michael.

Michael alleged fraud regarding a Power of Attorney (POA) used by his ex-spouse, Nabila Nashid, to transfer the property and secure an RBC mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment to RBC, finding the POA validly exercised as against third parties without notice of limitations, and that Michael was bound by Nashid's acts as agent.

The court also ordered the net proceeds from the sale of another property to be paid towards RBC's judgment against Nashid, with any balance to Michael.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) applied for rectification of a mortgage registered solely against Alniz Rehmtulla, despite the intention for it to be registered against both Alniz and Azra Rehmtulla, who jointly owned the property.

The Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), an execution creditor of both Rehmtullas, opposed the rectification, arguing it was not available and was statute-barred by the Limitations Act.

The court found that the registration error was due to inadvertence and that the Land Titles Act provided wide statutory discretion for rectification.

The court rejected BDC's arguments, including the limitations period defense, and granted TD's request for rectification, finding it just to correct the mutual mistake and prevent BDC from unfairly benefiting from the error.