Olubunmi Ogunniyi

A motion for summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

The plaintiff advanced $120,000 to the defendant secured by a second mortgage on residential property at an interest rate of 12% for a six-month term expiring July 8, 2025.

The mortgage was not paid at maturity.

The defendant raised four defences: lack of legal demand, improper additional charges, denial of the principal amount, and entitlement to a 120-day grace period.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, though it substantially reduced the claimed additional charges by applying section 8 of the Interest Act.

The court allowed the defendant until December 1, 2025 before execution on a writ of possession.

The applicant, Mitsubishi HC Capital Canada Inc., sought the appointment of a receiver over the property of the respondent, Ribs Transport Inc., following defaults under a credit agreement and two settlement agreements.

The court found that a subsequent settlement agreement (the "Second Settlement Agreement") was binding and that Ribs had substantially complied with its terms, including making significant payments and arranging a required meeting, albeit late.

The court declined to appoint a receiver, holding that such an appointment was not just or convenient in the circumstances, and adjourned the application sine die, returnable on notice if the settlement was breached.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, Benny and Joy Osajie, in a real estate transaction dispute.

The defendant, Eevine Alile, failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale, alleging misrepresentation regarding square footage, poor property condition, and the absence of a basement tenant.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on any of these grounds, dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim, and awarded damages and costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, Natalie Walker, brought a motion for default judgment against 13690792 Canada Inc. and its directors, Rafiqul Malik and Titus Muhuri, for misappropriation of $69,000 loaned for real estate investment.

The defendants failed to defend the action or respond to the motion, having been noted in default.

The court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for civil fraud, piercing the corporate veil due to the directors using the corporation as a shell to funnel money to themselves.

The court awarded damages, punitive damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the defendants' sanctionable conduct, including breaching a prior court order.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after being successful in their application.

The respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, arguing he was more successful.

The court found both parties disregarded judicial directions regarding costs and procedural law.

While the applicants were entitled to costs, the court found no basis for substantial indemnity.

The court significantly reduced the quantum of costs claimed by the applicants due to excessive rates and time spent on an uncomplex matter, and considered the parties' litigation conduct, particularly the respondent's worse conduct.

The applicants were awarded $25,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants sought relief from various fees charged by the respondent on a mortgage, arguing they breached the Interest Act and Criminal Code, and also sought production of documents and a declaration of prejudicial conduct.

The court found that renewal, administration, and NSF fees were not properly chargeable as no evidence of incurred costs was provided, applying s. 8 of the Interest Act.

Legal fees were found chargeable at an admitted quantum.

The request for declaratory relief was dismissed as it served no practical purpose and sought to predetermine future issues.

The court also heavily criticized both counsels for extensive procedural non-compliance.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and unconscionability arising from a series of private mortgages and a construction contract.

The individual defendant, acting as a trusted friend and financial advisor, induced the plaintiff to enter into a construction contract with a fictitious company and to take out multiple mortgages at high interest rates with his own lending company.

The construction work was abandoned, poorly executed, and failed to comply with the Building Code.

The court found that the defendants committed fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit, and negligence, and that the transactions were unconscionable.

The court set aside the mortgages and the construction contract, and ordered the defendants to pay damages for the cost of repairing and completing the construction.

Hamilton Cab Company Inc. and John Dean sought summary judgment against Jaspal Gill and related numbered companies concerning outstanding debt, mortgage enforcement, and a counterclaim for professional negligence.

The court granted Hamilton Cab's motion for possession of mortgaged properties and partial summary judgment for $470,487.62, with additional debt to be determined on a reference.

The court dismissed the Gill defendants' counterclaim against John Dean, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the validity of the agreements or the solicitor's standard of care.

The plaintiff requested a telephone conference to settle the form of an order made at a previous motion.

The defendants' counsel of record had declined to approve the draft order because his retainer was terminated and the corporate defendant intended to act in person.

The court held that because the corporate defendant had not obtained leave to act in person and the lawyer had not been removed from the record, the lawyer had a professional obligation to approve the draft order as to form and content.

The court signed the draft order.