Orlando Santos

The plaintiff moved for judgment on a $35,000 loan secured by a second mortgage.

The defendants admitted the debt but alleged an oral agreement whereby the plaintiff would discharge the mortgage upon payment of $20,000 on closing and $15,000 by instalments, and claimed damages after the property sale failed to close.

The court found the alleged oral agreement lacked certainty because no instalment terms were agreed upon and the evidence supporting the agreement was vague and improbable.

Applying the summary judgment principles from Hryniak, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff and the defendants’ counterclaim was dismissed.

Following a family law motion concerning support and s. 7 expenses, the court addressed costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party had partial success on the underlying motion but failed to obtain the full relief sought, and the record disclosed disclosure deficiencies and inconsistent financial materials filed by that party.

The opposing party’s cross‑motion to strike pleadings lacked merit, though a disclosure request was granted.

Considering the conduct of the parties, settlement offers, proportionality, and the modest complexity of the motion, the court reduced the costs sought and ordered the opposing party to pay a reduced amount.

The court declined to order the costs to be enforceable as child support.