Jeffrey Kukla

The appellant appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent $1,191,727.94 for a defaulted mortgage.

The appellant argued she was denied a fair hearing because her visual impairment was not adequately accommodated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant had previously been granted two adjournments and did not request a further adjournment based on her disability at the hearing.

The motion judge's decision finding no triable issues was upheld.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought an undefended motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagors following a default on a renewed mortgage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment for the principal, interest, and certain fees, while disallowing some administrative and prepayment fees.

The court also granted the plaintiff possession of the property and awarded fixed costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for payment of arrears owing under a mortgage and for possession of the property.

The defendants failed to agree to a renewal rate or repay the loan, leading the plaintiff to automatically renew the mortgage on an open term at 8.5% as per the Standard Charge Terms.

The defendants subsequently defaulted on payments.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the facts were clear and uncontradicted.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the outstanding amount and possession of the property.

The plaintiff mortgage lender obtained default judgment and lawfully evicted the defendants from the mortgaged premises.

The plaintiff then entered into an agreement to sell the property.

Taking advantage of the COVID-19 suspension of evictions, one of the defendants unlawfully re-entered the premises and sought to stay enforcement proceedings to redeem the mortgage.

The court found the defendant's actions to be an unlawful resort to self-help and granted the plaintiff's motion for a writ of possession, directing police assistance if necessary.

The applicants, second mortgagees, sought to set aside a tenancy agreement under s. 52 of the Mortgages Act after the mortgagors defaulted and a writ of possession was issued.

The mortgagors had entered into a lease with the tenants for $800 per month, significantly below the monthly mortgage payments, after the default occurred.

The court found the lease was entered into with the object of discouraging the mortgagees from taking possession or adversely affecting their interest.

Balancing the interests of the innocent tenants and the mortgagees, the court ordered the tenancy to terminate in three months to allow the tenants time to find new accommodation.

Hazelton Homes Corporation, a non-party, brought a motion for leave to intervene and to set aside orders granting the plaintiffs leave to issue writs of possession for two properties.

Hazelton alleged the defendant held the properties in trust for it, while the defendant claimed the trust agreements were forged.

The plaintiffs and the first mortgagee held mortgages in default.

The court found Hazelton was not a mortgagor under section 23 of the Mortgages Act but granted an interim order allowing Hazelton to intervene and stayed the enforcement of the writs of possession, conditional upon Hazelton paying all mortgage arrears, ongoing interest, and costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following an interpleader motion regarding surplus proceeds from a power of sale, the court issued a costs endorsement and corrected a previous error regarding mortgage priorities.

The court ordered the unsuccessful execution creditor, SBMB Law, to pay partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff and three other mortgagees, finding that the litigation costs were incurred due to SBMB's unsuccessful priority claim.