Peter Verbeek

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagors for default on a second mortgage.

The plaintiff claimed the mortgage was renewed at a higher interest rate and sought various fees.

The defendants disputed the renewal and the propriety of many charges.

The court found the mortgage was not renewed and disallowed most of the plaintiff's claimed charges, including the renewal fee, various administration fees, and a three-month prepayment penalty, citing s. 8(1) of the Interest Act.

The court determined the correct amount to discharge the mortgage based on the original interest rate and allowed only a proper discharge fee.

In a mortgage enforcement action, the defendant mortgagor brought an urgent motion seeking to discharge the plaintiff's mortgages upon payment into court of a reduced amount to be fixed by the court.

The mortgagor had arranged a last-minute sale of the property that would not yield sufficient proceeds to pay the full amount claimed by the mortgagee.

The court declined to schedule an urgent hearing to summarily assess the disputed mortgage amounts, noting the urgency was self-imposed and the mortgagee would be prejudiced by releasing its security without full payment.

The court ordered that discharges be granted only upon payment of the full amounts claimed, with contested amounts to be paid into court or trust.

The plaintiff lawyer brought an action for unpaid legal fees totaling $68,893.92 against his former client.

The parties had an oral retainer agreement for mortgage enforcement work.

The defendant disputed the terms of the retainer and the reasonableness of the fees.

The court found that the parties agreed to an hourly rate of $575.

After assessing the accounts and reducing some charges for unreasonableness, the court ordered the defendant to pay $38,342.42 in outstanding fees, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $22,126.11.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $101,830.30, arguing the plaintiff prolonged the action by taking an incorrect legal position on the applicable interest rate.

The court found the plaintiff was prima facie entitled to costs but reduced the award to $13,060 because the plaintiff's insistence on an unsustainable interest rate prolonged the proceedings and hindered settlement.

The appellant sought to appeal a provincial officer's order requiring the decommissioning of a bore hole that was leaking natural gas.

The appellant failed to request a review of the order by the Director within the required seven-day period, and the Director subsequently refused a late request for review.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding that its jurisdiction under the Environmental Protection Act is limited to appeals of Director's orders.

Since no Director's order was issued and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to extend the time for requesting a Director's review, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the suspension of its Environmental Compliance Approval for the installation of vertical closed loop ground source heat pumps.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement that included an amended approval and workplan with enhanced training, oversight, and reporting requirements.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, and dismissed the appeal on consent.

Following a prior endorsement determining all issues between the parties, the court issued an addendum clarifying the scope of its earlier decision.

The court confirmed that the previously ordered lump sum spousal support payment resolved all past arrears and future spousal support obligations between the parties.

However, the court emphasized that the earlier decision did not address child support arrears.

Any child support arrears arising from prior court orders or agreements predating the earlier endorsement remained payable.

The applicant sought enforcement of an arbitration award and variation of child and spousal support obligations following separation.

The respondent requested clarification of the arbitration award, enforcement of a prior separation agreement, and arrears of support.

The court upheld the arbitration award and considered additional evidence relating to the parties’ financial circumstances and employment capacity.

The court found the applicant’s unemployment resulted from his own conduct and imputed income to him when determining support.

Lump sum spousal and child support were ordered and set off against the equalization amount owing for the matrimonial home, resulting in no further payments owed by either party.

The applicant sought enforcement of an arbitration award arising from family arbitration and requested variation of child and spousal support.

The respondent argued the arbitration was incomplete and sought clarification, enforcement of a prior separation agreement, and support arrears.

The court held the arbitration award resolved the equalization issues and was enforceable despite imperfect drafting.

The respondent was ordered to pay the equalization amount for the applicant’s interest in the matrimonial home.

Issues relating to spousal support were adjourned for further evidence because the arbitration record lacked sufficient evidence regarding the respondent’s employability.

The appellants appealed a trial decision regarding a loan, attempting to advance a new defence that Mrs. Dhir was not a party to the loan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the defence was not pleaded in the statement of defence or advanced at trial, making it too late to raise on appeal.

The court also noted there was evidence from which her participation could be inferred.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his negligence claim against his former law firm.

The law firm's secretary had negligently disclosed a private agreement of purchase and sale to a real estate agent, who subsequently obtained a $10,000 judgment against the appellant for unpaid commission.

The trial judge found the law firm negligent but dismissed the action because the appellant had not yet paid the judgment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the appellant had suffered damages upon the filing of a writ of execution.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish causation; the real estate agent already knew of the private sale, and the appellant's damages arose from his own contractual obligation to pay the commission.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error by the motion judge, noting that the evidence filed in support of the motion did not warrant the order sought.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the respondent filed no factum.