Court File and Parties

CITATION: Stoneridge Enterprises Limited v. Shrivastava, 2010 ONCA 665

DATE: 20101008

DOCKET: C50558

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Cronk, Blair and LaForme JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Stoneridge Enterprises Limited and R.S. Cruse & Associates Ltd.

Plaintiffs (Respondents in Appeal)

and

Arun Kumar Shrivastava and Rita Shrivastava

Respondents (Appellants in Appeal)

Christopher J. Jaglowitz, for the appellants

Ross Macdonald, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: October 5, 2010

On appeal from the judgment of Justice William Hourigan, of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 16, 2009.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This appeal arises from mortgage enforcement proceedings initiated by the respondents against the appellants. Although the appellants have been self-represented throughout the proceeding before this court, C. J. Jaglowitz appeared today to argue the appeal on their behalf. His submissions were of assistance to the court.

[2] By order dated April 16, 2009, Hourigan J. of the Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment to the respondents for the amount of $59,379.91 owing on a first mortgage held by the respondents on the appellants’ property. He also ordered the appellants to deliver possession of the property to the respondents. In so doing, the motion judge held that the appellants’ defence to the enforcement action and their response to the motion did not give rise to a genuine issue for trial, that the defence had no air of reality and consisted merely of “bald allegations”, and that the mortgage matured on January 1, 2009 and remained in default. The only matter properly before us is the appellants’ appeal from the motion judge’s decision.

[3] We agree with the conclusions of the motion judge. Contrary to the appellants’ submission, there is nothing in the record before us, or in the fresh evidence sought to be tendered by the appellants, evidencing that the mortgage in question was renewed. Even assuming that post-dated monthly mortgage cheques for the year 2009 were delivered by the appellants – and the record does not establish this – there is no evidence that those cheques were negotiated by the mortgagees. As the mortgage matured on January 1, 2009, the respondents were entitled to enforce the mortgage according to its terms.

[4] The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. As agreed by the parties, there shall be no costs of this appeal.

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“R.A. Blair J.A.”

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”