Jocelyn Catenacci

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment and possession of a mortgaged property following the defendant's default.

The defendant did not dispute the default or the amount owed but argued that summary judgment should not be granted because he had a speculative plan to cure the arrears using funds from a mortgage broker's other pending transactions.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the defendant's plan was speculative, did not address property tax arrears, and the defendant had not properly pursued relief under section 23 of the Mortgages Act.

The motion for summary judgment and possession was granted.

The appellant appealed an order denying her motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent after the appellant defaulted on her mortgage.

The motion judge found that while the appellant moved with reasonable dispatch, she failed to provide a draft statement of defence and her proposed defences lacked an air of reality.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's articulation or application of the test for setting aside a default judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Following a settlement of a mortgage action resulting in a consent judgment, the defendants sought a mortgage payout statement to discharge the mortgage and obtain new financing.

The plaintiff provided a payout statement that included additional legal fees and costs incurred prior to judgment, as well as a holdback amount.

The defendants objected to these additional amounts, arguing that all legal costs and fees incurred prior to judgment were addressed and adjudicated in the consent judgment.

The court found that the consent judgment included all legal costs incurred up to the date of settlement and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim additional pre-judgment legal costs or a holdback amount as a precondition to discharge.