Saad Suleman

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court found that the default judgment was irregularly obtained because the plaintiff noted the defendant in default one day prematurely under the computation of time rules, and because the plaintiff failed to attempt personal service before using an alternative to personal service.

Alternatively, the court applied the Mountain View criteria and found it was in the interests of justice to set aside the default judgment, as the defendant moved promptly, had a plausible excuse for the default, and raised an arguable defence.

The motion was granted and the default judgment was set aside.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Koehnen J. dated March 19, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion in a brief endorsement and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant on a personal guarantee for chargebacks totalling $234,171.89 plus fees.

The defendant, a director and owner of a furniture retail business, had signed both a card acceptance agreement with the plaintiff for payment processing services and a personal guarantee of the business's obligations.

After the business ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy, the plaintiff sought to enforce the guarantee.

The defendant argued that summary judgment was inappropriate, that the contract was unconscionable, that proper demand was not made, and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, finding no genuine issues requiring trial and rejecting all of the defendant's defences.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 37.14(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a summary judgment order granted by Justice Stevenson on January 8, 2025.

The defendants' counsel served a last-minute motion to remove himself as counsel and adjourn the hearing at 7:48 pm the night before the hearing.

Counsel did not attend the hearing, claiming an unexpected medical matter.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding that: (1) the medical evidence did not support an urgent medical condition preventing counsel's attendance; (2) counsel made an informed decision not to attend without proper reason; and (3) the defendant's email at 10:22 am did not establish insufficient notice.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $6,000 to the plaintiffs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court dated January 9, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellants, purchasers of a residential property, appealed a Superior Court order granting summary judgment to the respondent vendor.

The action, commenced under Simplified Procedure, alleged breaches of warranties in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale concerning the pool, hot tub, and heating systems.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial, concluding the appellants failed to establish liability based on warranty wording and lacked admissible evidence of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings on liability and damages, and upholding the decision that examinations conducted were inadmissible under Rule 76.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent was awarded costs on appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking indemnification under a commercial insurance policy for cellphone stock allegedly damaged by a toilet backup.

The parties had previously engaged in an appraisal process which left a category of 'disputed phones' unresolved due to sample testing.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and the defendant's request for a 'boomerang' summary judgment, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial because there was no evidence regarding the existence or absence of damage to the disputed phones.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage against the defendants.

The court considered whether the plaintiff could charge compound interest on default and whether an $87,000 payment made by one of the defendants should be allocated to the mortgage debt or to separate personal loans.

The court held that the compound interest provision violated section 8 of the Interest Act and was void.

Using its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1), the court found that the $87,000 payment was allocated to the personal loans, not the mortgage.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $374,060.97 plus simple interest, along with an order for possession of the property.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent real estate brokerage $10,750 in lost commission for breach of a buyer representation agreement.

On appeal, the appellant argued he should only be liable for half the commission because his wife also signed the agreement of purchase and sale for the new property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that this argument was not raised at trial, there was no evidence the wife signed the agreement, and the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding the appellant liable for the full amount.

On a summary judgment motion arising from a mixed-use condominium shared services dispute, the court enforced a registered Shared Services Agreement requiring payment of shared project expenses.

The responding parties argued the claim was statute-barred under the two-year period in the Limitations Act, 2002 and alternatively relied on estoppel and alleged breach by the moving party.

The court held that the claim was governed by the ten-year limitation period in s. 23(1) of the Real Property Limitations Act because the amounts were secured by a lien and charged upon land.

After applying the Hryniak summary judgment framework and using Rule 20 fact-finding powers, the court found the amounts owing were proven, no estoppel was established, and summary judgment should issue for the full amount claimed.