Amandeep Sidhu

The appellants received $96,000 by way of a second mortgage from the respondent, secured against residential property.

After defaulting on both the first and second mortgages, the respondent successfully moved for summary judgment for the outstanding indebtedness and possession of the property.

On appeal, the appellants — who had been self-represented below — argued that the motion judge failed to consider circumstances surrounding the execution of the second mortgage, including allegations of language barriers, conflict of interest on the part of their lawyer, and deficient legal advice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had executed an independent legal advice certificate, that an interpreter (their daughter) had been present at the relevant meetings, that the appellants had previously executed multiple mortgages on the same property, and that their post-execution attempts to settle the matter by entering into a third mortgage undermined their claim.

The stay of execution was lifted and costs of $10,000 all inclusive were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant, Sajjad Asghar, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his action and the grant of summary judgment in favour of the respondent, Dial and File Process Servers Inc. The original action sought summary judgment against the respondent for not timely returning legal documents.

The motion judge found no liability on the part of the respondent for any asserted causes of action (fraud, breach of contract, Consumer Protection Act) and granted summary judgment to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's comprehensive analysis and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent did nothing wrong.

The appellants appealed an order for summary judgment in a mortgage action.

The respondents on appeal moved for an order dismissing the appeal based on the appellants' failure to satisfy a prior court order to pay outstanding costs totaling $46,280.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had not complied with the previous order and that their arguments against dismissal, including claims of unfairness and inability to pay, lacked merit.

This addendum was issued by the Court of Appeal for Ontario to clarify the total outstanding costs owed by the responding parties to the moving parties, Harsha Rathod and Bluekat Capital Corp. It consolidates costs orders from previous decisions by Roberts J.A. and a three-judge panel, specifying the combined amounts due to each moving party.

This motion was brought by the moving parties seeking to dismiss the responding parties' appeal due to unpaid costs orders, or alternatively, to compel payment of these orders by a deadline, or to require further security for costs.

The court, presided over by a single judge, determined it lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal.

However, it ordered the responding parties to pay the outstanding costs orders by August 28, 2024, clarifying that costs orders are generally payable within 30 days even if no specific deadline is stated.

The appeal is scheduled to be heard on September 24, 2024, regardless of any further motion to dismiss.

Ijeoma Chijindu moved to set aside an order from Justice Lois B. Roberts that required her and other appellants to post security for costs of $35,605.12.

The motion judge had found that the criteria for security for costs under r. 61.06(1)(a) and (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure were met, noting the appellants' inability to pay and the low prospect of success of their appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Chijindu's motion, finding no error in the motion judge's determination and upholding the order for security for costs.

The appellants were ordered to pay all-inclusive costs to the respondents.

The moving parties sought security for costs of an appeal arising from mortgage disputes.

The responding parties (appellants) had defaulted on mortgages, and proceeds from power of sale were paid into court.

The motion judge ordered payment of these funds to the moving parties, which the responding parties appealed.

The Court of Appeal granted security for costs under Rule 61.06(1)(a) and (c), finding the appeal frivolous and vexatious with a low prospect of success, and that the appellants had insufficient assets or would be difficult to collect from.

The plaintiff and a defendant mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment and distribution of sale proceeds paid into court following the sale of two properties by power of sale.

The court found that the defendant owners had engaged in fraudulent conduct, including registering sham mortgages and fraudulently discharging a valid mortgage, to defeat creditors.

The court granted summary judgment, reinstated the fraudulently discharged mortgage, and ordered the distribution of the sale proceeds to the valid mortgagees, including their legal costs on a complete indemnity basis.

The plaintiff private lender moved for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage renewal agreement after the defendant defaulted.

The defendant, a self-represented homeowner, argued the renewal was unconscionable.

The court found the renewal agreement unconscionable due to the plaintiff's exploitation of the defendant's financial desperation, failure to provide mandatory regulatory disclosures, and inclusion of illegal terms under the Interest Act.

The renewal was declared null and void, and damages were awarded based only on the original mortgage terms, excluding the plaintiff's claimed discharge fees.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagor following a default on a second mortgage.

The defendant admitted liability for the principal and interest but disputed liability for mortgage discharge fees.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the default.

However, the court declined to award the claimed discharge fees, as the plaintiff had not yet incurred them and there was no evidence they were a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the principal and missed interest payments, plus partial indemnity costs.

The appellants, Twisha Talpade and Vineet Talpade, appealed a lower court order concerning mortgage enforcement and their dismissed counterclaim.

They alleged judicial bias, procedural unfairness, and errors in the calculation of outstanding mortgage amounts and the failure to award them damages.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, noting that the appellants had consented to the lower court's process while represented by counsel.

The court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's factual findings regarding the mortgage amounts or the decision not to award damages, as the counterclaim had been dismissed by consent.

The appeal of the costs order in favour of Jay Parmar and Canada Lend was also dismissed.

The appellants sought to overturn a motion judge's decision to dismiss their action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The underlying action concerned a mortgage whose validity had been previously decided.

The Court of Appeal found the action, which included 40 causes of action in a 300-page statement of claim, to be plainly vexatious and an abuse of process, upholding the motion judge's discretionary decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff, Mennie Manangan, brought an action for damages related to the purchase of a restaurant business and sought disbursal of sale proceeds from her home.

The defendants, including 2166729 Ontario Inc., brought a counterclaim for summary judgment to enforce three vendor-takeback mortgages granted by Manangan, on which she had defaulted.

The court dismissed Manangan's motion for disbursal of sale proceeds and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Manangan's claim and granting judgment on the counterclaim for $184,679.54 plus interest.

The court found Manangan's claims to be without merit, that she lacked standing for contract claims, and that she failed to provide evidence to establish a genuine issue for trial.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants due to the plaintiff's unmeritorious claim, delay, and unsubstantiated fraud allegations.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion brought by non-parties, Divya Jegasundaram and Rupasundar Jegasundaram, seeking a stay of enforcement of a Writ of Possession and to set aside a prior order.

The court ordered the Jegasundarams to pay costs to Malhotra Holdings Inc. ($12,500) and Krish Kumar Vadivale ($5,500), fixed on a basis approaching substantial indemnity.

The decision emphasized that the Jegasundarams' conduct, including bringing an urgent motion with late or missing factums and books of authorities, and shifting the requested relief, warranted elevated costs due to their non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the unnecessary consumption of court resources.

The defendant was successful on a motion regarding a breach of Minutes of Settlement and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $19,597.81, relying on a series of favourable offers to settle.

The plaintiff argued the motion was not complex and costs should not exceed $5,000.00.

The court found the requested amount excessive and awarded the defendant costs of $10,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion seeking an interlocutory order vesting title of a disputed property in their names to allow them to refinance and avoid eviction, as well as a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an order setting aside the noting of default on the defendant's counterclaim.

The parties disputed the beneficial ownership of the property, which was registered in the defendant's name.

The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had previously found the plaintiffs to be tenants and ordered their eviction due to mortgage defaults.

The court set aside the noting of default due to the plaintiffs' former counsel's negligence.

However, the court dismissed the requests for a vesting order and a CPL, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured them.

The court also found the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the LTB's eviction order.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve a dispute over commercial roof repairs and a construction lien.

The settlement required the responding party to rectify specific deficiencies by a deadline, subject to approval by an independent engineering firm, failing which funds held in court would be released to the moving party and the action dismissed.

The engineering firm found the responding party failed to correct all deficiencies.

The moving party sought summary judgment to enforce the settlement, while the responding party cross-moved for relief from forfeiture.

The court granted the moving party's motion and dismissed the cross-motion, finding the settlement terms constituted an agreed-upon forfeiture rather than an unconscionable penalty, and ordered the funds released.

The appellant loaned money secured by mortgages to a corporation.

The mortgage contained a condition increasing the interest rate from 12 percent to 21 percent if the mortgage matured and was not paid, or upon default.

The motion judge found this condition violated s. 8 of the Interest Act and that a subsequent renewal agreement was invalid because it lacked a required guarantor's signature.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the interest rate increase was triggered by default, thus offending s. 8, and that the indoor management rule did not apply because the appellant knew or ought to have known the signature was required.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application and the granting of the respondent's counter-application, the court determined costs.

The applicant argued that proposed Minutes of Settlement sent to the respondent constituted a Rule 49 offer.

The court found that the email attaching the Minutes explicitly stated counsel did not have instructions, and therefore it was not a valid Rule 49 offer.

The successful respondent was awarded costs of $10,509.75 on a partial indemnity basis.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy based on an N11 agreement.

The tenants argued the written agreement was subject to an oral side agreement allowing them to stay until the house was sold.

The Board upheld the eviction without making factual findings about the side agreement or explaining its legal consequences.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's failure to provide reasons or consider the real substance of the transaction under section 202(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act rendered the decision unreasonable and incapable of meaningful review.

The matter was remitted to a different Board member.