Matthew Tubie

The moving party sought review of a single-judge order dismissing its motion for an extension of time to appeal an order made in a receivership matter.

The court held that no error in principle, legal error, misapprehension of the evidence, or unreasonable result had been shown, and accepted that the motion judge properly considered all relevant circumstances, including prejudice and the conduct of the receivership.

The court also refused to admit proposed fresh evidence because it was not shown to have been unavailable through due diligence and would not have affected the result.

The review motion was dismissed with costs payable to the receiver.

The appellant commenced an action seeking damages, alleging the respondent lawyer received mortgage discharge funds on his behalf but took the funds without documenting a loan or repaying them.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's summary judgment motion due to conflicting evidence and credibility issues.

On a boomerang basis, the motion judge dismissed the action as statute-barred, finding the appellant knew of his claim by November 2, 2020, when his demand for payment or a signed loan commitment was refused, and the action was not commenced until 32 months later.

The Court of Appeal found no error, rejected the appellant's fraudulent concealment argument, and dismissed the appeal with costs of $8,000 to the respondent.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment finding she breached an agreement of purchase and sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellant was never in a position to close the transaction.

A one-day error by the respondent in setting the closing date was deemed minor and immaterial to the appellant's ability to complete the purchase.

The appellant sought a declaration of beneficial ownership of a condominium owned by the estate of the deceased, claiming an express or resulting trust.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of a trust agreement or gratuitous payments, and noting that oral evidence alone cannot create an interest in land under the Statute of Frauds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's assessment of the evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against three properties.

The defendants consented to a CPL against one property and the plaintiffs withdrew their claim against another.

The remaining issue was whether a CPL should be granted against the third property.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the third property, finding that the plaintiffs had signed a release, the limitation period had likely expired, the property was not unique, and the claim was essentially for the return of a deposit.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment and default judgment to enforce a lien against the defendants' unit for unpaid common expenses, including an insurance deductible chargeback and associated interest.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendants acknowledged the debt and the plaintiff provided a revised calculation removing disputed legal costs and related interest.

The court granted judgment for $4,883.33 and fixed the plaintiff's costs at $10,000, significantly reducing the claimed amount of $39,535.53.

Following a judgment that reduced the amount claimed on a mortgage by $38,000, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought full indemnity costs of $22,851.46 based on standard charge terms, while the defendants sought their costs.

The court exercised its discretion to deny costs to the successful plaintiff, finding that the litigation was caused by the plaintiff's failure to properly document mortgage advances and its improper addition of third-party rent to the mortgage.

No order as to costs was made.

The plaintiff mortgage lender sought to recover amounts allegedly owing on a mortgage.

The defendants disputed six specific payments that the plaintiff had added to the mortgage principal.

Following a trial, the court found that three payments totaling $79,000 were properly added to the mortgage, while three other payments totaling $38,000 were not properly added due to lack of consent or documentation.

The court directed the parties to calculate the final amount owing based on these findings.

The defendants brought an urgent motion to set aside a default judgment and writ of possession obtained by the plaintiffs after the defendants defaulted on their mortgage.

The court applied the five-part test for setting aside a default judgment.

While the defendants had a plausible excuse for their delay, the court found they had no arguable defence on the merits, as the interest calculations were standard and the three-month interest penalty was valid.

The motion was dismissed, though the default judgment was varied on consent to remove $1,875 in administrative fees.

The plaintiff factoring company sued the defendant transportation company and its principal for breach of a factoring agreement and personal guarantee.

The defendants counterclaimed for intentional interference with economic relations, alleging the plaintiff unlawfully seized funds and ruined their business relationship with a major client after the factoring agreement had been orally terminated.

The court found that promissory estoppel precluded the plaintiff from relying on the terminated factoring agreement.

However, the defendant still owed $200,000 for third-party invoices assigned to the plaintiff.

On the counterclaim, the court found the plaintiff liable to the corporate defendant for intentional interference with economic relations, awarding $175,000 in damages at large, but dismissed the principal's personal claims as derivative.