The appellants appealed a Superior Court judgment upholding a mortgage enforcement action.
The appellants admitted the mortgage debt but argued that their financial difficulties preventing payment were caused by improper actions of their former lawyer regarding the placement of the mortgage.
The Court of Appeal found no evidence linking the lawyer dispute to the respondent mortgagees' conduct and noted that the dispute concerned only approximately $40,000 of the mortgage proceeds used to discharge writs.
The appellants offered no reasonable explanation for how resolving the lawyer claim would enable payment of the approximately $830,000 owing under the mortgage.
The court found no equitable basis to prevent mortgage enforcement and dismissed the appeal.
