Rachel Mester

This costs endorsement followed a successful application by the Respondent concerning the interpretation of a settlement agreement, entitling the Respondent to a $100,000 holdback.

The Respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $24,050.52.

The Applicants, despite being unsuccessful, sought $7,000.00 in costs, alleging unnecessary steps by the Respondent.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, awarded the Respondent $12,000.00 in fees plus disbursements.

The judge noted that the time and effort expended by both sides was disproportionate to the amount in issue and that both parties adopted a "scorched earth" attitude by raising extraneous issues.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the defendant for a defaulted $250,000 mortgage.

The court granted judgment for the principal debt, nine missed payments, and an additional three months of interest under Section 17 of the Mortgages Act, totaling $274,999.96.

Pre-judgment interest was awarded at the statutory rate of 2% per annum, and post-judgment interest at 3% per annum.

The court dismissed claims for higher contractual interest rates, service fees, legal fees without proper proof, a writ of possession, and possession as chargee/mortgagee.

The decision also addressed the problematic nature of lawyer affidavits based on file review in summary judgment motions.

Costs were fixed at $9,000.00 for the plaintiffs.

This application concerned the interpretation of a settlement agreement regarding a $100,000 holdback amount.

The applicants (mortgagors) argued that their registration of additional security was satisfactory, and the respondent (mortgagee) could not unreasonably reject it.

The respondent contended it had sole and absolute discretion to determine satisfaction with the additional security.

The court agreed with the respondent's interpretation, finding that the discretion extended to the adequacy of the security, not just its registration.

The court dismissed the applicants' claims for misrepresentation against the respondent but found no misrepresentations by the applicants.

The holdback amount was ordered to be released to the respondent.