Rob Winterstein

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion in writing for default judgment for possession and foreclosure against the defendant unit owner for unpaid common expenses.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court granted the motion, ordering possession and foreclosure of the equity of redemption in favour of the condominium corporation, with a condition to pay the second defendant's mortgage upon sale.

The applicant held a third mortgage on a property and challenged the sale of the property by the assignee of the first mortgage, arguing the assignee failed to issue a fresh notice of sale.

The applicant moved to convert the application into an action to add allegations of fraud, while the respondents moved to dismiss the application.

The court granted the motion to convert the application into an action, finding the record insufficient to deny the investors the ability to pursue their claims.

However, the court ruled on the legal issue, holding that under the Mortgages Act, an assignee is not required to issue a fresh notice of sale if the interested parties received written notice of the assignment.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order that stayed his action pending the payment of several outstanding costs orders.

The plaintiff argued the Master lacked jurisdiction to vary a previous order to include additional costs awards reinstated by the Divisional Court.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master had jurisdiction under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 59.06(1) to vary the order based on the changed factual landscape.

The court also reprimanded the self-represented plaintiff for making unauthorized audio recordings of the proceedings in violation of section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act.

A self‑represented defendant brought a motion seeking costs of an action after the action was administratively dismissed for delay under Form 48D.

The responding party argued that the issue of costs had already been determined in earlier proceedings before a master and upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court held that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel barred the renewed request for costs because the entitlement had already been finally determined.

The administrative dismissal order was issued without knowledge of the prior rulings and did not reopen the issue.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a successful interlocutory motion extending time to appeal and setting aside portions of a master's direction, the self‑represented moving party sought costs substantially exceeding $3,000 against the opposing parties and their counsel.

The court considered the principles governing cost awards to self‑represented litigants, including the rule that such litigants are generally not entitled to indemnity for legal expenses absent proof of lost income or opportunity cost.

The moving party provided no evidence of income loss and had also received a court fee waiver.

Applying established authority, the court held that only modest disbursements were recoverable.

The court awarded $300 for disbursements and otherwise made no order as to costs.

The plaintiff sought an extension of time to appeal portions of a case management direction issued by a master deeming the plaintiff served with a notice of examination for discovery, deeming non‑attendance, and deeming a certificate of non‑attendance obtained.

The court held that the justice of the case required granting the extension, particularly because the merits of the proposed appeal were strong.

The court found that the master lacked jurisdiction under rule 77.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to impose deeming provisions effectively finding an anticipatory breach of discovery obligations before a notice had been served and without procedural fairness.

The deeming provisions created an unfair procedural landscape for a future motion concerning the manner of discovery.

The extension of time was granted and the appeal allowed, striking the impugned paragraphs of the case management direction.