Nadia Condotta

The applicants, farmers with multiple mortgages held by the late Leo Goodman, applied for a discharge of the mortgages, arguing they had been paid in full.

The parties disputed the outstanding balance due to poor record-keeping and an unresolved 2008 Farm Debt Mediation Act agreement.

The court determined four preliminary issues to assist the parties in reconciling the accounts: it found a 2008 Interim Agreement was an unenforceable agreement to agree, a $60,000 promissory note was unenforceable, the respondent failed to prove certain construction mortgage advances, and a $15,144 legal account was extinguished by the mediation agreement.

The court directed the parties to re-evaluate their positions based on these findings.

The tenant, a law firm, vacated its commercial premises and sought to sublet to a private school.

The landlord refused consent because the lease expressly prohibited use as a school.

The tenant stopped paying rent and brought an application declaring the refusal unreasonable, while the landlord moved for summary judgment for rental arrears.

The court found the landlord's refusal reasonable and granted summary judgment for the arrears, noting the landlord had no duty to mitigate since it had not terminated the lease.

The appellant bank appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 in damages for an allegedly improper power of sale.

The trial judge found the bank failed to provide proper notice under the Mortgages Act because it sent the notice of sale to the mortgaged property, knowing the mortgagors were out of the country.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 33(1) of the Mortgages Act, a mortgagee is entitled to serve the notice of sale at the specific address provided for service in the mortgage document, regardless of whether the mortgagee knows the mortgagor is living elsewhere.

The trial judgment was set aside.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligent legal advice, arguing it was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff contended the limitation period did not commence until the full extent of legal costs was known.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered all material facts for the claim by November 2010, including the injury, its cause by the defendant's omission, and that a proceeding was an appropriate remedy.

Consequently, the action, commenced in May 2015, was well outside the limitation period and was dismissed.

The parties, former real estate business partners, disputed the ownership of three commercial parking spaces.

The defendant had paid the entire purchase price, but legal title was registered to the plaintiff's corporation due to a mistaken belief about condominium ownership rules.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to buy the defendant's beneficial interest.

The court found no enforceable agreement existed, noting it would violate the Statute of Frauds.

Recognizing the defendant as the sole beneficial owner under a resulting trust, the court ordered the plaintiff to convey legal title to the defendant.