Jordan Potasky

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a defaulted mortgage and obtain an order for possession.

The defendants conceded the default but objected to various default and administrative fees claimed by the plaintiff.

The court granted judgment and possession but disallowed the disputed fees, finding they were prohibited by s. 8 of the Interest Act as they effectively imposed a higher rate on arrears without evidence of actual administrative costs.

Due to the plaintiff advancing these unwarranted charges, the court exercised its discretion to deny the plaintiff's claim for contractual substantial indemnity costs.

The self-represented defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a mortgage enforcement action.

The defendants argued they intended to refinance but were prevented by a caution placed on title by another lender in a parallel action.

The court applied the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms and found that while the defendants moved promptly and had a plausible excuse for default, they lacked an arguable defence on the merits as they admitted to breaching the mortgage contract and being in arrears.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce signed Minutes of Settlement reached shortly before a scheduled family property trial concerning alleged beneficial ownership of two residential condominiums.

The defendants argued the action should proceed because they were rushed, distressed, and did not understand the terms.

The court found a binding settlement had been reached on all essential terms, preferred the evidence of former defence counsel over the defendants' evidence, and held that subjective after-the-fact misunderstanding did not displace the objective meaning of the written agreement.

The court further held that this was not one of the rare cases where compelling circumstances made enforcement contrary to the interests of justice.

Judgment was ordered in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Neural Systems Inc., JiangJian Wang, and George Tarazi from a summary judgment granted in favour of the Business Development Bank of Canada.

The court found the appeal to be meritless and brought solely to delay judgment, noting that the debt remained unpaid and there was no genuine issue for trial.

The appellants' arguments regarding repayment efforts were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed with costs of $5,000 awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff moved for judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement purportedly executed following a pre-trial conference regarding a dispute over beneficial ownership of two condominium properties.

The defendants opposed, arguing they did not agree to transfer the property as a trustee to a beneficial owner and felt pressured to sign.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidentiary record deficient and conflicting, with three different versions of the Minutes of Settlement presented and no direct evidence from the plaintiff confirming his signature.

A trial was directed to determine whether a binding settlement agreement was actually reached.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate borrower and its personal guarantor after the borrower defaulted on a $100,000 loan.

The defendants argued the bank breached its duty of good faith and fiduciary duty by failing to explain the loan terms and by calling the loan despite the borrower bringing arrears current.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no fiduciary duty existed, the bank acted reasonably and in good faith in exercising its contractual rights after reviewing the borrower's financial disclosure, and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

This motion concerned the defendants' application to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) previously granted ex parte against their property.

The defendants argued material non-disclosure by the plaintiff, lack of plaintiff's assets to cover potential damages, and improper use of the CPL as pre-judgment execution.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts in the ex parte motion, including the true nature of his claim, his financial capacity to meet damages, the unsigned nature of the underlying agreement, and the absence of key contractual terms (deadlines, subcontractor prohibitions).

Consequently, the court vacated the CPL due to this material non-disclosure, emphasizing the strict duty of candour required in ex parte proceedings.

The court also briefly considered the test for CPLs in fraudulent conveyance actions without a prior judgment, finding that even on that test, the CPL should be discharged.

The applicants sought a declaration that an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a property was null and void after the respondent purchasers failed to waive inspection and financing conditions by the deadline.

The respondents had proposed an amendment to the APS instead of waiving the conditions, which the applicants did not accept.

The respondents subsequently registered a Purchaser's Lien on the property.

The court held that the APS was null and void because the conditions were not explicitly waived or fulfilled in writing as required.

The court ordered the Purchaser's Lien discharged and the deposit returned to the respondents, finding no breach of the duty of good faith by the applicants.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action for the return of a $100,000 deposit on a real estate transaction.

The property's depth was significantly less than described in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The respondent vendor had manually added 'To be verified' next to the depth dimension.

The motion judge found this proviso shifted the risk of inaccuracy to the purchaser.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the proviso did not impose a pre-contractual obligation on the purchaser to verify dimensions, nor did it transfer the risk or negate the 'more or less' clause.

The deposit was ordered returned to the appellant.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking possession of the individual defendant's residential home to satisfy a mortgage shortfall of approximately $978,000 following the sale of a commercial investment property.

The defendants opposed the motion, counterclaiming that the plaintiff sold the investment property improvidently for $4.8 million despite earlier appraisals valuing it much higher, and challenging nearly $500,000 in renewal fees and penalties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the conflicting property appraisals, the plaintiff's efforts to sell the property, and the legal effect and comprehension of the additional fees.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Marvello Construction Ltd., under Rule 56.01(1)(d) and (e).

The plaintiff claimed impecuniosity but failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure for itself or its principals, as required for corporate plaintiffs.

The court found the plaintiff's claim was not frivolous or vexatious and that the action, while referencing the Ontario Business Corporations Act, was fundamentally a claim for unpaid invoices, thus not immune from a security for costs order.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in tranches.

The landlord sought a review of a motion judge's decision refusing to set aside a Registrar's Order that dismissed his appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board for delay.

The landlord argued he was denied a fair hearing before the motion judge because he was not properly served with the tenants' responding materials.

The Divisional Court allowed the landlord to make all arguments he would have made originally, but ultimately dismissed the motion, finding no adequate explanation for the delay and no merit to the appeal.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence that was discoverable at the time of the original hearing, which the landlord had chosen not to participate in after his adjournment request was denied.

The defendant moved to stay or dismiss an Ontario action seeking recognition and enforcement of a U.S. judgment, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction because there was no real and substantial connection between the defendant and Ontario.

The plaintiff brought a cross‑motion to amend its statement of claim to add grounds for service ex juris.

The court held that in recognition and enforcement proceedings the applicable test is that set out in Beals v. Saldanha, requiring a real and substantial connection between the foreign court and the underlying dispute, not between the defendant and Ontario.

The court found the Beals criteria were satisfied, including a final foreign judgment for a fixed sum and no applicable defences.

The defendant’s motion was dismissed and the plaintiff’s amendment was allowed in part to clarify service outside Ontario.

The appellant garnishee appealed an order directing payment to the respondent judgment creditor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the motion judge to conclude the appellant had not established any debt owed to him by the debtor company to justify an offset.

The court also upheld the order for direct payment to the respondent, as there was evidence the respondent was the only execution creditor.

A judgment creditor brought a motion under Rule 60.08(16) seeking judgment against a garnishee who was the sole shareholder and director of the corporate judgment debtor.

After extensive post‑judgment proceedings, the court determined that the garnishee had withdrawn approximately $118,000 from the corporation for personal expenses and rejected an accounting “adjusting entry” that purported to offset the debt.

The court held that the entry lacked any legitimate business basis and was intended to conceal the garnishee’s liability to the corporation.

Although the creditor also argued that dividends paid while the corporation was insolvent should be repaid under the Business Corporations Act, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish insolvency at the relevant time.

Garnishment judgment was granted for the amount owed to the creditor and payment was ordered directly to the judgment creditor.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the decision and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $2,500.

The appellants appealed a judgment refusing to admit their affidavit evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applications judge made no error in refusing to admit the affidavit, and that even if it had been admitted, it would not have changed the result.

Costs were fixed at $3,000.