Ralph F.D. Swaine

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment, her noting in default, and writs of seizure and sale.

The plaintiffs opposed and sought terms if the judgment was set aside.

The court applied the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen, finding the motion was brought promptly, there was a plausible excuse for default (disputed service), and an arguable defence regarding an ambiguous closing date clause.

The court granted the motion to set aside the default judgment and noting in default, but imposed terms including payment of costs thrown away ($14,376.51) and allowing the writs of seizure and sale to remain in place as security, though not immediately enforceable.

The defendants moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for amounts owing on four truck leases.

The court found no procedural irregularity in the service of the statement of claim or the obtaining of default judgment.

However, applying the five-factor test for setting aside a regularly obtained default judgment, the court determined that the defendants had a plausible explanation for their delay in responding and an arguable defence on the merits, particularly regarding the authenticity of signatures on two disputed leases and the application of payments.

The court emphasized the importance of resolving matters on their merits and found that allowing the defence to proceed was in the interests of the administration of justice.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting damages to the respondents for breach of an oral agreement regarding the sale and installation of Shaw Cable packages in Ontario.

The appellants also sought leave to appeal a full indemnity costs award of $144,991.

The motion judge found that the appellants breached the agreement, misappropriated funds, and owed monies pursuant to loans.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in finding the agreement was not a joint venture, that they breached it, that it was not varied, that one appellant dissipated assets, and that judgment was awarded to a non-party.

The Court of Appeal upheld most findings but varied the judgment to remove a non-party from the damage award.

The court upheld the full indemnity costs award, finding the appellants' conduct—including moving funds out of the country and fabricating evidence—warranted such an award.

The applicant and respondent, brothers, disputed their interests in a condominium.

They signed minutes of settlement for the respondent to buy out the applicant's share for $80,000.

The respondent failed to pay, leading to litigation where both sought partition and sale, but the applicant also sought enforcement of the settlement.

The respondent argued impossibility of enforcement due to the property's sale, but the court found this argument specious, noting the respondent's prior inconsistent positions and lack of ability to fund the buyout.

The court enforced the minutes of settlement, ordering the respondent to pay $80,000 from the sale proceeds.

A law firm (the Firm) sought an order for equitable subrogation to the Toronto-Dominion Bank's (TD) first mortgage interest.

The Firm had paid insurance proceeds to TD after erroneously disbursing them to the mortgagors, Yousefie and his spouse, without including TD as a co-payee, despite instructions.

The property had been sold under power of sale, and the Firm sought priority over TD's equitable mortgage and three other registered mortgagees in the surplus funds.

The court dismissed the Firm's motion, finding that the criteria for equitable subrogation were not met, as the Firm did not pay off the mortgage at the mortgagor's request with the intention of becoming a first mortgagee, nor did it fully discharge the mortgagors' obligation to TD.

Furthermore, the Firm had caused its own loss, TD was not unjustly enriched, and the Firm had alternate remedies.

Granting subrogation would prejudice the other mortgagees who had bargained for their priority.

The plaintiff, Mohanjit Singh Jassal, sued the defendants, Pawan Kaith, Bibi Kaith, and Kundan Kaith, for specific performance or damages arising from an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a residential property.

The plaintiff alleged the APS was binding and never rescinded, while the defendants claimed it was orally rescinded shortly after signing due to a change in family circumstances.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony unreliable and concluded that the parties had mutually agreed to rescind the APS.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The court also determined, in obiter, that even if the APS had not been rescinded, specific performance would not have been granted as the property was not unique, and only nominal damages would have been awarded due to the availability of similar properties.