Megan Van Kessel

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs to enforce personal guarantees and obtain possession and payment under a collateral mortgage, except for the Plaintiffs’ claim for internal collection costs, which was dismissed.

The Defendants argued the property was sold improvidently and challenged the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to internal collection costs.

The court found no triable issue regarding the sale, as the process met the Soundair factors, and dismissed the claim for collection costs due to lack of evidence and non-compliance with the contract’s requirements.

The court voided six promissory notes and struck out related mortgages registered by the plaintiffs against the defendants' properties, finding that the notes were materially altered without consent, contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act.

The court also declined to grant equitable mortgages or certificates of pending litigation, citing the plaintiffs' inequitable conduct and failure to meet statutory tests.

The decision addresses issues of forged notes, after-acquired property, corporate personality, and the application of the Family Law Act to matrimonial homes.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondents $605,000 in damages for the anticipatory breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in accepting the respondents' expert appraisal of the property's value and in not sending the matter to trial due to competing expert opinions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's preference for the respondents' expert, who followed accepted methodologies, nor in the determination that the respondents reasonably mitigated their damages by purchasing a comparable property on the assessment date.

The Corporation of the Township of Augusta brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a claim by residential landowners (plaintiffs) alleging the Township breached a duty of care and acted in bad faith regarding site plan approvals for an adjacent trucking terminal.

The plaintiffs contended the Township's decisions were operational, not policy, and demonstrated bad faith by approving a non-permitted use and later an expanded site plan despite ongoing nuisance complaints.

The court found the Township's decisions were policy decisions, protected by statutory and common law immunity, provided they were made in good faith.

The plaintiffs failed to meet the high burden of proving bad faith, which requires demonstrating arbitrary, capricious, dishonest, or ulterior motives, or actions so patently unreasonable as to exceed governmental discretion.

The court dismissed the claims against the Township, but noted the plaintiffs could still pursue claims against the trucking company for negligence and nuisance.

Following a summary judgment granting the plaintiff $567,767.25 and possession of a property, the plaintiff sought costs of $40,659.20 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the standard charge terms entitled the plaintiff to substantial indemnity costs and there were no special circumstances to depart from this agreement.

The court awarded the requested amount, noting the serious allegations made by the defendant justified the use of senior counsel.

The plaintiff, 1000249084 Ontario Inc., sought summary judgment for a mortgage debt and sale of a property.

The defendant, Payam Andazesgishahr, argued collusion between the plaintiff (owned by the son of his former business partner) and his former partner, and that the plaintiff acted in bad faith.

The defendant also argued the proceeding was deficient because his wife, Ima Tavakkoli, a co-resident in the matrimonial home, was not served.

The court found no genuine issue of collusion or bad faith, noting the plaintiff's actions were reasonable business decisions.

The court also dismissed the argument regarding the wife's non-service, finding she had actual knowledge of the proceedings and that the argument was a delay tactic.

The court granted judgment to the plaintiff for the mortgage amount and an order for possession, directing the title of the proceeding to be amended to add the wife as a defendant and staying the judgment for 30 days to allow her to seek relief.