Jessica R. Hewlett

This endorsement concerns a motion by Chicago Title Insurance Company to continue an interim ex parte Mareva injunction related to mortgage fraud proceeds.

The court found a strong prima facie case and a significant risk of dissipation of funds, which remained unchallenged by the defendants.

The injunction was continued, and the motion adjourned for further proceedings.

The defendants by counterclaim, Robert Mammone and S.O.R.A. Real Estate & Insurance Ltd. o/a MIC Financial (the "Brokers"), moved for summary judgment to dismiss Mary Kosta-Cadas's counterclaim against them, arguing it was statute-barred by the applicable limitation period.

Mrs. Kosta-Cadas's claim was for contribution and indemnity in negligence, alleging the Brokers failed to ensure she understood and signed mortgage and renewal documents.

The central issue was the interpretation of section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002, specifically whether the discoverability principle could cause the limitation period for an indemnity claim to start before the main action was served on the party seeking indemnity.

The court dismissed the Brokers' motion, holding that the limitation period for Mrs. Kosta-Cadas's indemnity claim commenced when she was served with the main action, not when she first became aware of potential issues with the mortgage.

The plaintiff moved for an order to extend the time to set the matter down for trial, which the defendants opposed, seeking dismissal for delay.

The action, arising from a business purchase, had been dormant for over five years.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and the action, finding the plaintiff's explanations for delay (family deaths, wife's mental health, own mental health, financial strain, COVID-19 impact) unacceptable due to lack of cogent evidence and the plaintiff's apparent financial capacity and other business activities.

The court also found actual prejudice to the defendants due to faded witness memories and unavailable banking records, emphasizing the importance of respecting procedural timelines for timely access to justice.

The plaintiff appealed an Associate Justice's order that set aside the noting in default of the defendants.

The court found that the Associate Justice erred in principle and made overriding errors of fact by misapprehending service issues and the defendants' persistent non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appeal was granted, confirming that the defendants were properly noted in default, and allowing the plaintiff to proceed with a motion for default judgment.

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property that had been transferred from the defendant's ex-husband to the defendant as part of a separation agreement.

The defendant moved to discharge the CPL, arguing the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, including a prior settlement and release, and the circumstances surrounding a previous motion to renew a writ of execution.

The court found the plaintiff breached the duty of full and fair disclosure under Rule 39.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and discharged the CPL, emphasizing the exceptional duty on parties seeking ex parte relief.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's damages assessment following a failed real estate transaction.

The motion judge awarded DHMK Properties Inc. damages based on the difference between the agreed purchase price ($5.3 million) and the property's market value in August 2014 ($4.27 million), without accounting for the vendor's warranty obligations regarding net income or providing reasons for the valuation date selection.

The Court of Appeal found two critical errors: the failure to consider the effect of the vendor's warranty on damages calculation, and the unexplained selection of August 2014 as the valuation date rather than the scheduled closing date.

The court set aside the judgment and remitted the damages assessment to the Superior Court.

The applicant, DHMK Properties Inc., sought summary judgment for damages following the respondents' (2296608 Ontario Inc. and Mund Real Estate Group Inc.) repudiation of a real estate purchase agreement.

The respondents had refused to close a $5.3 million transaction and subsequently sued for specific performance with an abatement, which was dismissed.

DHMK claimed $930,000 in damages, representing the difference between the contract price and the property's market value, less the forfeited deposit.

The respondents argued DHMK failed to mitigate by refusing a post-judgment offer to complete the original contract and that the damages calculation was flawed by ignoring a warranty regarding net operating income.

The court granted summary judgment to DHMK for $930,000, affirming the standard measure of damages for breach of a land sale contract and rejecting the respondents' mitigation and damages calculation arguments.