4 total
Late unilateral mortgage renewal could not justify penalty-like fees.
The moving parties sought recovery of amounts paid under protest to discharge mortgages after a failed maturity repayment and threatened receivership enforcement.
The court held that the lender's purported unilateral automatic renewal was ineffective because essential implied terms required timely decision and communication before renewal obligations fell due, failing which the renewal mechanism operated as an impermissible penalty under s. 8(1) of the Interest Act.
Renewal-related fees and associated interest exacted as a discharge condition were therefore recoverable.
The lender's alternative claim for three months' interest under s. 17 of the Mortgages Act was rejected because the payments arose in the context of enforcement and no surviving stand-alone claim existed after discharge.
Costs entitlement for the second segment was awarded to the moving parties, with scale and quantum left for later determination.
The court dismissed the defendants' action and struck their statement of defence due to deliberate and repeated failures to comply with documentary disclosure orders.
The court considered whether to dismiss the Schembri Action and strike Schembri’s defence in the Way Action due to Schembri’s repeated, prolonged, and intentional failure to comply with documentary disclosure obligations, including undertakings and multiple court orders.
The court found Schembri’s conduct deliberate and unjustified, resulting in significant delay and prejudice.
Applying the principles from Falcon Lumber and related appellate authorities, the court held that the exceptional remedy of dismissal and striking pleadings was proportionate and necessary to uphold the integrity of the justice system.
The court applied issue estoppel to preclude a shareholder from seeking a claims process previously denied at trial.
The court-appointed Liquidator of two companies sought advice and direction regarding the application of issue estoppel to claims by a shareholder, Christos Kommatas, and the payment of funds to another shareholder, George Vastis.
The core dispute involved whether Kommatas was precluded from seeking an order for the Liquidator to conduct a claims process as part of the liquidation, an issue previously raised and denied at trial.
The court found that Kommatas was indeed precluded by issue estoppel, as this specific issue was distinctly put before and decided against Kommatas in the prior trial.
The court also authorized the payment of $250,000 to Vastis as previously ordered.
Court awards 4% simple interest on both late mortgage payments and disputed funds held in trust.
Following a successful motion interpreting a price adjustment clause in a land development agreement, the applicant sought the return of disputed funds held in trust by the respondents' solicitor, along with interest.
The court determined the appropriate interest rates for both the undisputed mortgage amounts paid late by the applicant and the disputed funds held in trust by the respondents.
The court awarded 4% simple interest to the respondents on the late undisputed payments and 4% simple interest to the applicant on the disputed funds held in trust, allowing the respondents to retain the GIC interest earned.
