Matthew Wise

The plaintiff, New Haven Mortgage Corporation, brought a motion for default judgment or, alternatively, summary judgment, and leave to issue a writ of possession against the defendants due to a mortgage being in default for sixteen months.

Despite a previous court order setting aside an initial default judgment and requiring the defendants to file a statement of defence, the defendants failed to comply or respond to the summary judgment motion.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the plaintiff entitled to default judgment due to non-compliance, and alternatively, summary judgment as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

A writ of possession for the property was also granted.

The plaintiff, VWR Capital Corp., brought an ex parte motion for a writ of possession against the defendant, Radha Dookie, following a mortgage default and default judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that a writ of possession cannot be issued without sufficient evidence that the property is not tenanted and that all occupants have received formal notice, in compliance with section 48(1) of the Mortgages Act and the Residential Tenancies Act.

The plaintiff's evidence, based on a 2021 mortgage statement and statutory declaration, was deemed insufficient to prove the current tenancy status.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court judgment upholding a mortgage enforcement action.

The appellants admitted the mortgage debt but argued that their financial difficulties preventing payment were caused by improper actions of their former lawyer regarding the placement of the mortgage.

The Court of Appeal found no evidence linking the lawyer dispute to the respondent mortgagees' conduct and noted that the dispute concerned only approximately $40,000 of the mortgage proceeds used to discharge writs.

The appellants offered no reasonable explanation for how resolving the lawyer claim would enable payment of the approximately $830,000 owing under the mortgage.

The court found no equitable basis to prevent mortgage enforcement and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff, EcoConcepts Management Services Inc., and the third parties (former board members) each moved for summary judgment against Peel Condominium Corporation No. 260.

The dispute arose from the termination of EcoConcepts' management contract, which included a highly contentious termination clause requiring payment for the remainder of a five-year term.

Allegations of fabricated documents, improper board authorization, and bad faith were central to the defendant's counterclaim and third-party claim for contribution and indemnity.

The court dismissed both motions for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact, particularly concerning credibility and the circumstances surrounding the 2013 Agreement's authorization, required a full trial for a fair and just determination.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her motion to terminate an ex parte Mareva injunction and a related costs order of $33,500.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, which properly applied the test for Mareva injunctions and carefully reviewed the evidence.

The court also found the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general importance.

The plaintiff supplier moved for summary judgment to recover a liquidated debt for packaging products delivered under purchase orders totaling over US$280,000.

The defendants asserted a counterclaim alleging the plaintiff bribed a purchasing employee to manipulate purchasing practices, causing losses exceeding $1.7 million.

After previously granting the defendants an opportunity to provide evidence of damages, the court found the defendants had failed to produce expert or analytical evidence establishing material damages.

The court held that the evidence supported only a potential claim for unliquidated punitive damages and did not justify delaying payment of the uncontested debt.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the liquidated claim, the defence of set‑off was dismissed, and the counterclaim was permitted to proceed to trial.

The moving defendants sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that it was frivolous and vexatious.

The claims arose from a mortgage enforcement and eviction following default on mortgages registered against a property owned by the plaintiff’s spouse.

Prior court and Landlord and Tenant Board determinations had already found that the plaintiff had neither ownership nor tenancy rights in the property and that the eviction was lawful.

The court held that the amended statement of claim contained unintelligible allegations, lacked standing, and attempted to re‑litigate issues already determined.

Applying Rule 2.1.01, the court concluded that the action constituted an abuse of process and summarily dismissed the claims against the moving defendants.