Liliana Ferreira

The Toronto-Dominion Bank brought an ex parte motion to amend a default judgment from 2015 to add an alleged alias of the defendant, "Joseph Raymond Wing," and to obtain a writ of seizure and sale in that name.

The court denied the requested relief, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence to establish that the defendant and Joseph Raymond Wing were the same person.

The court also noted the plaintiff's lack of due diligence in discovering the alleged alias earlier and expressed strong disapproval of counsel's conduct in bringing such a motion ex parte with inadequate materials.

The motion was adjourned to be heard orally on notice to both the defendant and Joseph Raymond Wing.

The applicant daughter brought an application seeking a capacity assessment for her father, her appointment as his guardian of property and personal care, and the setting aside of a 2020 Power of Attorney in favour of her brother.

The respondent parents brought a cross-application seeking the return of their assets held jointly by the daughter and an accounting of her management of their finances.

The court dismissed the daughter's application, finding insufficient evidence to displace the father's presumption of capacity or to set aside the 2020 Power of Attorney, and noting her failure to file a guardianship plan.

The parents' application was granted in part, with the court ordering the daughter to return title to their properties, relinquish joint accounts, and provide an accounting from 2018 to 2020.

The court also ordered the brother to provide an annual accounting and directed the appointment of a third-party administrator to manage the sale of the parents' Canadian properties.

The appellant, principal of a hotel corporation that defaulted on mortgage financing, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding interpretation of a forbearance agreement.

The appellant argued that under the forbearance agreement with the respondent lender, the debt was limited to $8.5 million (the amount paid to discharge the original mortgage), rather than the full $17 million outstanding.

The appellant also sought relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, holding that the forbearance agreement clearly assigned the full $17 million debt and that relief from forfeiture was not warranted as the transaction was not unconscionable and the result was not disproportionate.

CVC Ardellini Investments Inc. sought a declaration that the debt of the bankrupt Templar Hotel Corporation was at least $17 million, following a refinancing arrangement.

Del Terrelonge, a guarantor, argued the debt was limited to $8.5 million, contending the refinancing constituted a new loan.

The court found that the refinancing was a forbearance agreement, not a permanent reduction of the original debt.

Upon Templar's default, the full original debt amount became enforceable, and the provisions of the Interest Act and the Courts of Justice Act regarding penalties and forfeitures did not apply.

The motion was granted in favour of CVC Ardellini Investments Inc.

The applicant, CVC Ardellini Investments Inc., sought leave to file a second supplementary application record, or alternatively, a supplementary affidavit from Robert A. Izsak and an affidavit from Elio Monaco.

The application aimed to obtain an order assigning the respondent's mortgage on the basis of default.

The court applied Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs the filing of affidavits after cross-examination.

Leave was granted only for paragraph 8 of Mr. Izsak's supplementary affidavit, which attached the mortgage amending agreement, as it responded to information previously refused during cross-examination due to a misinterpretation of PIPEDA.

All other parts of Mr. Izsak's affidavit and Mr. Monaco's affidavit were deemed inadmissible as they contained information known prior to cross-examination, did not respond to matters raised on cross-examination, or were irrelevant.

The applicant's motion was dismissed in part, and the respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent brought a motion requiring the applicants to post security for costs and pay outstanding costs awards before proceeding with their application regarding a hotel development dispute.

The court found that the respondent was prima facie entitled to security for costs under Rule 56.01 and that the applicants failed to establish impecuniosity or a real possibility of success.

The court ordered the applicants to pay $22,748.74 in outstanding costs and post $50,000 in security for costs within 30 days, staying the application until compliance.