Louis Vittas

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to post $66,670 as security for costs pending the trial of their counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal raised the issue of jurisdiction, noting that orders for security for costs are interlocutory, not final.

The appellants argued the order was final in substance because they could not afford to pay it, which would end the litigation.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the legal nature of the order, not its practical effect, determines whether it is interlocutory or final.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The applicant brought an application for the partition and sale of a property co-owned with his brother.

The brother brought a cross-application claiming a 77% ownership interest based on a constructive trust, arguing that a $120,000 payment from their mother used to pay down the mortgage was a gift to him.

The court found that the $120,000 payment was a loan to both brothers, not a gift to one.

The court declared the brothers to be 50:50 owners, ordered the partition and sale of the property, and directed that the mother have a first charge of $120,000 on the net proceeds to repay the loan.

The applicant brought an application for the partition and sale of a property co-owned with his brother.

The brother brought a cross-application claiming a 77% ownership interest based on a constructive trust, arguing that a $120,000 payment from their mother used to pay down the mortgage was a gift to him.

The court found that the $120,000 payment was a loan to both brothers, not a gift to one.

The court declared the brothers to be 50:50 owners, ordered the partition and sale of the property, and directed that the mother have a first charge of $120,000 on the net proceeds to repay the loan.

The appellant mortgagor defaulted on a third mortgage.

The respondent mortgagee obtained summary judgment for the principal amount on consent, and the motion judge subsequently assessed and reduced the ancillary amounts claimed for fees, penalties, and costs.

The motion judge also granted possession to the mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's assessment of the amounts owed or the granting of possession, and dismissed the appeal.

In a family dispute over vacant land held in common, the applicant sought an order for sale under the Partition Act after the co-owners could not agree on disposition.

The principal opposing respondents argued for dismissal or, alternatively, partition rather than sale.

The court held that co-owners have a prima facie right to partition or sale, subject only to limited discretion where malice, oppression, vexatious intent, or equivalent hardship is shown.

Because the evidence indicated further partition might be foreclosed by municipal by-laws and prior severances, sale was more advantageous to the parties.

A reference was ordered to a Master to value the lands and supervise the sale, with no costs awarded.