Mario Kalemi

Following a summary judgment motion determining the applicable interest rate on a mortgage, the parties disputed the principal amount payable and costs.

The plaintiff claimed the principal was $350,000 based on a second mortgage commitment and relied on proprietary estoppel and part performance.

The defendants argued the principal was $337,755 as the full amount was not advanced.

The court rejected the plaintiff's equitable arguments, finding no detrimental reliance, and determined the principal payable was $339,840, which included the amount advanced plus an outstanding broker fee.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $24,877.93.

The applicants, vendors of a property, sought a declaration that the respondent purchaser breached an agreement of purchase and sale by failing to close.

The purchaser argued the contract was frustrated due to substantial property damage and sought relief from forfeiture of her $72,500 deposit.

The court found that the purchaser breached the agreement, that there was no frustration of contract, and that the purchaser failed to act in good faith.

The vendors were entitled to the deposit, and the purchaser was not granted relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was not disproportionate and forfeiture was not unconscionable given the parties' sophistication and the purchaser's conduct.

The applicant vendors sought a declaration that the respondent purchaser breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property and an order for the release of the $72,500 deposit.

The purchaser failed to close the transaction, alleging that water damage in the garage and basement frustrated the contract and rendered the property uninsurable and unable to be financed.

The court found that the purchaser breached the agreement, as there was insufficient evidence of substantial damage to justify frustration of the contract.

The court also denied the purchaser's request for relief from forfeiture, finding that the deposit was not disproportionate, forfeiture was not unconscionable, and the purchaser had acted in bad faith by using the alleged damage as a pretext to avoid closing after failing to secure favorable financing extensions.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought summary judgment for possession of a property and monetary judgment against the mortgagor and guarantors, claiming interest at 21% and relying on a mortgage renewal agreement.

The defendants disputed the interest rate, asserting 12%, and challenged the enforceability of the renewal agreement.

The court found the 21% interest clause violated section 8 of the Interest Act, ruling the interest rate to be 12%.

The court also found the renewal agreement unenforceable due to the plaintiff's knowledge that a co-owner's signature was required, thus the indoor management rule did not apply.

Additionally, a construction lien registered by one defendant was declared expired and vacated.