4 total
Vendor granted $1,000,000 balloon payment; remediation clause limited to known outstanding orders at closing.
The applicant vendor brought an application under Rule 14.05(3) to compel the respondent purchaser to pay a $1,000,000 balloon payment under a vendor-take-back mortgage.
The respondent argued the payment was not due because the applicant had not completed ongoing remediation work required by the local conservation authority.
The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and found that the remediation clause only required the applicant to pay outstanding fees, fines, and orders known at the time of closing within a six-month period.
The clause did not create an open-ended obligation to indemnify the purchaser for unknown future remediation expenses.
The application was granted and the respondent was ordered to make the payment.
The court granted an interim consent order for equipment repossession but denied the applicant costs to penalize blatant forum shopping.
A financing company sought an application for orders to locate and repossess equipment covered by financing and guarantee agreements that were allegedly breached.
The parties consented to an interim order requiring the respondents to deliver possession of the equipment, provide information regarding its whereabouts, and cooperate with access to premises for removal.
The application was adjourned sine die, returnable on seven days' notice.
However, the court denied the applicant all costs associated with the appearance, expressing disapproval of forum shopping, as the underlying dispute had no rational connection to the London venue where the application was brought.
The court granted an adjournment and denied the applicant costs for the appearance as a sanction for blatant forum shopping.
The applicant, a financial services company, brought an application seeking orders to locate and facilitate repossession of a vehicle subject to a conditional sales agreement where the respondents had allegedly defaulted on their obligations.
The respondents requested an adjournment to August 22, 2025, to retain counsel, which was granted as the first adjournment request.
However, the court expressed serious concerns regarding the applicant's choice of venue, finding that the application had no rational connection to London, Middlesex County, or the Southwest Region, as all parties, the underlying contract, and the vehicle were located in the Central West/Central East regions.
The court denied the applicant all costs for today's appearance as a sanction against forum shopping and improper venue selection.
Motion to discharge CPL denied; plaintiff established triable issue of fraudulent conveyance by former spouse.
The self-represented defendant moved to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff against a condominium.
The plaintiff, the former spouse of the co-defendant, alleged the co-defendant fraudulently conveyed his interest in the condominium to his new spouse to defeat his substantial spousal support and equalization arrears.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff had established a triable issue of fraudulent conveyance based on numerous 'badges of fraud', and that the CPL was necessary to protect the plaintiff's potential recovery given the co-defendant's relentless history of avoiding court-ordered obligations.
