The court considered competing motions regarding possession of a commercial property and the discharge of a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) in the context of a mortgage default.
The Plaintiff, a holding company, sought to set aside an ex parte order granting the CPL and to be declared in possession of the property.
The Defendant argued an oral agreement allowed indefinite interest-only payments and challenged the Plaintiff’s right to possession.
The court found the Defendant failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, that the Plaintiff was entitled to possession under the mortgage and the Mortgages Act, and that the CPL should be vacated.
The Plaintiff’s motion was granted and the Defendant’s dismissed.