Obaidul Hoque

The moving parties sought recovery of amounts paid under protest to discharge mortgages after a failed maturity repayment and threatened receivership enforcement.

The court held that the lender's purported unilateral automatic renewal was ineffective because essential implied terms required timely decision and communication before renewal obligations fell due, failing which the renewal mechanism operated as an impermissible penalty under s. 8(1) of the Interest Act.

Renewal-related fees and associated interest exacted as a discharge condition were therefore recoverable.

The lender's alternative claim for three months' interest under s. 17 of the Mortgages Act was rejected because the payments arose in the context of enforcement and no surviving stand-alone claim existed after discharge.

Costs entitlement for the second segment was awarded to the moving parties, with scale and quantum left for later determination.

A commercial tenancy dispute concerning a restaurant lease that expired on December 12, 2024.

The tenant failed to exercise a contractual renewal option by the required deadline of six months prior to expiry (June 2024).

The tenant sought relief from forfeiture to compel renewal of the lease for another five years.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the tenant made no diligent efforts to comply with the renewal option and failed to provide written notice as required by the lease.

The court held that relief from forfeiture is not available where the loss of the lease is consequential to the tenant's own failure to exercise contractual rights.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by 2724582 Ontario Inc. and related parties, upholding the motion judge’s decision that a release signed by Rhonda Gold was void and unenforceable.

The court found that the process used to determine the enforceability of the release was appropriate, as both parties had agreed to it.

The release was found void in part because it contained an illegal provision barring regulatory complaints.

The court also rejected arguments that the motion judge’s findings about the mortgage scheme would cause inconsistent results at trial, and found no error in the judge’s treatment of the evidence.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Janina Joseph-Walker's motion to set aside the administrative dismissal of her appeal and to extend the time for perfection of her appeal in a mortgage enforcement matter.

The court found that Joseph-Walker failed to show a continuing intention to appeal, did not adequately explain her delay, and that her grounds of appeal had no merit.

The court also noted that the equities favoured AST Trust Company (Canada), as Joseph-Walker had been in default for over three years and had registered subsequent mortgages without notice.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to AST.

The appellant, Eli Messica, appealed an order granting the respondents’ application for the discharge of a security charge and dismissing his cross-application for damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge’s findings that the lease provided for the release of the guarantors upon assignment and that the cross-application was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court rejected arguments regarding the conversion of the application to an action and the applicability of the Real Property Limitations Act, finding no reversible error or prejudice.

The Bank of Montreal sought a declaration that its mortgage on a property in Oshawa was entitled to first priority over a competing mortgage registered by 10655252 Canada Corporation, relying on the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

The court found that BMO’s funds were used to pay out the prior first mortgage (CIBC), and that all parties intended BMO to have first priority.

Due to the solicitor’s negligence, the BMO mortgage was not registered first, but the court exercised its discretion to grant equitable subrogation, giving BMO first priority to the extent of the CIBC mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff mortgagee, MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc., against the defendants, Cajetan Jose Fernandes and Maria Dolly Fernandes, for possession of the mortgaged property and payment of the outstanding balance.

The main dispute concerned the validity and enforceability of certain fees and charges levied by the plaintiff, particularly those related to mortgage renewals and default.

The court found that most fees were contractually agreed to and enforceable, except for certain penalties (such as NSF fees) which were found to be unenforceable as penalties under the Interest Act and common law.

The court also found that the summary judgment process was appropriate in this case, as there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

The appellant commercial tenant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its action for breach of lease and granting the respondent landlord's counterclaim for rent arrears and property damage.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by relying on hearsay for repair estimates, excluding surreptitious recordings, and finding the landlord's refusal to consent to a lease assignment was reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or factual findings regarding the unsuitability of the premises for the proposed assignee's auto body shop.

The applicant, Mohammed Mazbah Uddin Bhuiyan, sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) after the respondent, Marissa Gonzales, refused to close a real estate transaction due to insufficient funds to discharge existing mortgages.

The court found that the applicant did not meet the low threshold for a CPL, as the unique features cited related to location rather than the property itself, and the rights of the mortgagee (MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc.)—which had already obtained judgment and a writ of possession—outweighed those of the applicant.

The motion for a CPL was dismissed.

This motion addressed a receiver's application for an approval and vesting order (AVO) for the sale of properties, which was opposed by the debtors asserting their equitable right of redemption.

The debtors sought to delay the sale to secure financing, but their efforts were deemed highly conditional and uncertain.

The court applied the Soundair test, finding that the receiver conducted a robust and fair marketing process that yielded the best price.

The court emphasized that the debtors' inability to present a complete and unconditional financing package at the time of the motion was fatal to their request, distinguishing this case from precedents where redemption was allowed due to the debtor's immediate ability to pay.

The receiver's motion for the AVO was granted, and the debtors' cross-motion was dismissed.

The appellant, Farzana Ratan Sonia, appealed a motion judge's order recognizing a Bangladesh talaq divorce and setting aside prior consent orders.

The recognition of the foreign divorce precluded her claims for spousal support and equalization of net family property in Ontario due to limitation periods and the interpretation of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Bangladesh divorce, governed by the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, was not a "bare" talaq divorce and satisfied Canadian requirements for recognition due to state oversight and notice provisions.

The court also upheld the setting aside of consent orders due to the appellant's misrepresentation about her subsequent marriage.

Following a finding that the parties were validly divorced in Bangladesh in 2017, the court determined the cost consequences of the litigation.

The court found that the responding party commenced and conducted the family law proceeding in bad faith by advancing baseless allegations of fraud and forgery against the moving party, his counsel, and third parties.

Applying Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered costs on a full recovery basis.

The responding party was ordered to pay $298,292.34 in costs, reflecting a fair and reasonable amount given the egregious conduct and the extensive court resources consumed.

The appellants, purchasers of a new home, appealed an order declaring they repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale by failing to close and dismissing their counter-application for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusions.

The lower court correctly found that the vendor satisfied the requirements to extend the closing date due to "Unavoidable Delay" (COVID-19 related), was not obligated to deliver the occupancy permit before closing, and did not act in bad faith by refusing a further extension.

The appellate court affirmed the application judge's interpretation of the agreement and factual findings, noting they were entitled to deference.

The moving party (husband) sought to set aside consent orders regarding the validity of a 2017 Bangladeshi divorce, arguing his consent was vitiated by the responding party's (wife's) misrepresentation that she had not remarried.

The court set aside the consent orders, finding the wife had misrepresented her marital status.

Upon reviewing the evidence de novo, the court found that the 2017 Bangladeshi divorce was valid, not obtained by fraud, and should be recognized in Canada.

Consequently, the wife's claims for spousal support were dismissed, and her claim for equalization of net family property was barred by the limitation period.

The respondent brought a motion within a family law proceeding seeking a declaration that the applicant had married a third party in Bangladesh in May 2020, which would impact her claims for spousal support and equalization.

The applicant denied the marriage and alleged the respondent was orchestrating a massive fraudulent conspiracy involving forged documents and perjured testimony.

After a detailed assessment of the evidence, including testimony from third-party affiants, hospital records, and handwritten letters, the court rejected the applicant's fraud allegations as baseless and found that she had indeed married the third party on May 24, 2020.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential townhome.

The defendant failed to file responding materials and his request for an adjournment was denied as a delay tactic.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the balance due on closing.

Summary judgment was granted, allowing the plaintiff to retain the deposit and awarding damages for the loss of bargain and carrying costs, plus partial indemnity costs.

This is an appeal from a judgment ordering the sale of a property under the Partition Act.

The Court of Appeal addressed a preliminary jurisdictional issue, noting that section 7 of the Partition Act stipulates appeals from orders made under the Act lie to the Divisional Court.

Despite the appellants' argument that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction due to intertwined issues, and the respondents' lack of objection, the court held that parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement.

The Court found the judgment squarely fell under the Partition Act, and therefore, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The appeal was quashed, and the appellants were ordered to pay costs.

This appeal concerned a failed condominium purchase where the central issue was the vendor's compliance with the Tarion Warranty Corporation Addendum, specifically regarding the delivery of an occupancy permit or confirmation of occupancy conditions.

The application judge found that no occupancy permit was required and that a letter from the builder was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal found a palpable and overriding error in the application judge's finding that the letter was *delivered* as required by the Addendum.

The evidence showed the letter was merely available for pick-up, not delivered.

The Court allowed the appeal, declared the vendor in breach of the agreement of purchase and sale, and ordered a reference to determine damages, along with costs to the appellants.

The added defendants (purchasers) moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff, to lift a stay on a writ of possession, and for the return of their purchase funds after a failed real estate closing.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining the CPL and that the equities favoured the purchasers.

The court discharged the CPL, lifted the stay on the writ of possession, and ordered the vendors' solicitor to immediately return the purchase funds to the purchasers, as the vendors failed to provide vacant possession and clear title on closing.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a condominium unit they had agreed to purchase from the defendants.

The plaintiffs failed to close on the scheduled closing date due to delays in obtaining title insurance and financing caused by a zoning restriction on the property.

The defendants refused to extend the closing date and treated the agreement as at an end.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue for specific performance because the plaintiffs had waived the relevant conditions and the defendants were entitled to rely on the 'time is of the essence' clause.

The court also found that the equities did not favour granting a CPL.