Roderick Byrnes

The appellant, Juleth Dawson, appealed a motion judge's judgment for payment and possession under a mortgage, primarily challenging the calculation of interest owing.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision not to reduce the contractual interest rate from 7.5% to 2% due to the respondents' failure to deliver a mortgage statement.

The court distinguished the case from Cheung v. Moskowitz Capital Mortgage, affirming that the discretion to reduce interest is fact-driven and requires evidence of the mortgagee seeking an advantage or the mortgagor suffering prejudice.

As no such advantage was sought or prejudice suffered, and payments had not been made for four years, the appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1049, brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence for failure to retain counsel, or in the alternative, to compel them to do so, pursuant to Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant, a corporation, was represented by its sole officer and director, who had been disbarred.

The court found that the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence of authorization or financial inability to retain counsel, and that the proposed representative's past professional misconduct raised concerns about protecting corporate interests.

The motion was granted, ordering the corporation to retain counsel within 30 days, failing which its statement of defence would be struck, and awarded costs to the plaintiff and third party.