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.
