4 total
Default judgment granted for mortgage arrears, awarding damages, contractual interest, and vacant possession.
The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for failure to pay under a registered mortgage.
The defendants were noted in default and did not respond to the motion.
The court found that the deemed admissions in the statement of claim, supported by affidavit evidence, established liability.
The court granted default judgment, awarding the plaintiff $678,863.71 in damages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the contractual rate of 3.7%, vacant possession of the property, and $6,000 in costs.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed without costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Parghi J. dated October 15, 2024.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.
Specific performance granted for aborted real estate sale as property was uniquely affordable for purchasers.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment seeking specific performance after the defendant breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.
The defendant failed to close the transaction and was noted in default.
The court found the property was unique to the plaintiffs because it was within their budget in a rising real estate market and conveniently located near their workplaces.
The court granted specific performance but dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for incidental damages as it was not pleaded in the Statement of Claim.
Vendor ordered to pay $175,000 real estate deposit into court under Rule 45.02 pending litigation.
The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion under Rule 45.02 for an order requiring the defendant vendor to pay into court the deposit from an aborted real estate transaction.
The transaction failed to close because the vendor did not complete required electrical upgrades.
The plaintiff mistakenly signed a mutual release directing the deposit to the vendor, and the vendor's agent disbursed the funds.
The court found the plaintiff met the test for Rule 45.02, establishing a claim to a specific fund, a serious issue to be tried regarding the mistaken release, and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the remaining $175,000 held by the vendor.