Paul Mand

The plaintiff by counterclaim advanced $465,000 to the defendant religious corporation based on verbal assurances from its spiritual leader that the funds would be repaid after a new gurdwara was constructed.

The corporation argued the payments were either donations or statute-barred loans.

The court found the payments were not donations and no valid loan agreement existed, establishing unjust enrichment.

Although the claimant sought a remedial constructive trust, the court held a monetary award was sufficient.

Applying McConnell v. Huxtable, the court ruled the alternative claim for monetary restitution was protected by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, as the proprietary claim was viable and not an abuse of process.

The corporation was ordered to pay $465,000 in damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property owned by a corporation, alleging he loaned $250,000 to his brother who signed a promissory note agreeing to place a mortgage on the property if he defaulted.

The brother defaulted and it was discovered he had no authority to bind the corporation.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the property and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a seized charge against the defendants' property.

The defendants acknowledged the debt but sought relief from accrued interest under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, arguing they could not make payments after the original lender's principal was arrested.

The court found the 13% interest rate was not excessive given the risk, and the transaction was not unconscionable as the defendants freely entered into it and failed to utilize the Mortgages Act to pay the debt into court when the lender could not be found.

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff.