Laura Pinkerton

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to each of the three responding parties, for a total of $9,000.

The plaintiff brought an action alleging the defendants conspired to acquire a property by fraud.

The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The plaintiff argued its interest in the property, registered under the Personal Property Security Act, had priority over a subsequent mortgage registered under the Land Titles Act, and that the mortgage was void under the Planning Act for failing to include abutting lands.

The court found that PPSA registration does not provide notice to a subsequent mortgagee of real property, and the plaintiff failed to establish ownership of the abutting lands.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the moving defendants.

The defendant mortgagor moved to set aside a default judgment and writ of possession obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee, and to stay a prior order declining to set aside a notice to vacate.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no plausible explanation for the defendant's default, no arguable defence on the merits regarding priority of encumbrances or Planning Act compliance, and that setting aside the judgment would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff and undermine the administration of justice.

The responding party attempted to enforce two historical Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) orders regarding sewer extensions by initiating enforcement proceedings in the Superior Court without an originating process.

The moving party municipality brought a motion to strike the proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding that the OMB has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce, vary, or rescind its own orders under the Ontario Municipal Board Act, and relief must be sought directly from the OMB.

The moving party sought to remove the respondent municipality's counsel for alleged conflict of interest and also claimed extensive ancillary monetary and property-related relief arising from historic foreclosure proceedings concerning a lodge property.

The court found no evidentiary basis for any solicitor-client relationship between the impugned law firm and the moving party or its principals, and treated the motion as effectively a collateral attack on long-completed foreclosure proceedings.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.

On costs, the court held that non-compliance with the costs outline rule was not fatal absent prejudice, but reduced the respondent's request and awarded proportionate substantial indemnity costs of $4,068 inclusive of HST.

The defendant mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for possession and the amount due under a mortgage.

The plaintiff mortgagor argued it was no longer in default, the notice of sale omitted some property, and the defendant failed to provide notice under s. 244 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff was in default, the court should not interfere with the lawful realization of security, and the plaintiff was not an 'insolvent person' requiring s. 244 notice.