Joseph Agueci

The plaintiff, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, brought an ex parte motion for leave to issue a writ of possession for a mortgaged property.

The motion was initially declined due to an occupancy report suggesting the property had been sold.

Upon receiving supplementary evidence confirming the defendants and their adult children still occupied the property and the anticipated sale did not proceed, the court was satisfied that the requirements of Rule 60.10(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure were met.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to issue the writ of possession.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion in writing for leave to issue a writ of possession for a mortgaged property.

The court noted that the plaintiff's occupancy check report indicated the property had recently been sold with an impending closing date.

The court declined to grant the order, finding that further evidence was required to confirm the identity of the persons currently in actual possession of the property to ensure they received sufficient notice under Rule 60.10(2).