Sanfilippo

The applicant mortgagor sought a declaration that the respondent mortgagee was not entitled to withhold a three-month interest charge of $351,000 following the sale of the secured property by a privately-appointed receiver.

The court held that section 17 of the Mortgages Act does not allow a mortgagee to claim three months' interest when realizing on security through a forced sale.

Furthermore, the specific terms of the mortgage did not grant the mortgagee the right to impose this charge upon realization.

The application was granted, and the respondent was ordered to account for and transfer the withheld funds to the applicant.

At a case management conference, the plaintiffs sought costs against the defendant condominium corporation for the late production of over 4,600 pages of documents.

The late production necessitated vacating a scheduled mediation and modifying the case management timetable.

The court found that the defendant's breach of the court-ordered timetable resulted in foreseeable delay and wasted costs.

The plaintiffs were awarded $1,500 in costs payable forthwith.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement reached on February 3, 2017, under which the defendants agreed to pay $10,000 plus costs to be assessed, argued, or negotiated.

The court noted that a motion to enforce was unnecessary as the settlement was conceded, and the only remaining issue was the quantum of costs.

Applying principles of proportionality and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs of the action at $33,414.31 and awarded $1,500 for the costs of the motion.

The moving party plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the responding party defendants' late-filed affidavit on a summary judgment motion.

The defendants had breached two court-ordered timetables and delivered their responding record seven months late, frustrating the plaintiffs' right to cross-examine.

The court declined to strike the affidavit, prioritizing the determination of the summary judgment motion on its merits with a full evidentiary record.

Instead, the court adjourned the summary judgment motion and imposed a strict timetable for cross-examinations and factum delivery, awarding costs of the motion to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff in a civil action regarding beneficial ownership of corporate properties sought to implement a comprehensive discovery plan.

The defendant argued for limited production tailored to an early mediation and suggested holding the action in abeyance pending a motion in a related family law proceeding.

The case management judge held that the action should not remain in abeyance, emphasizing the need for efficiency and proportionality under Rule 1.04.

A timetable was set for a motion on the discovery plan and subsequent documentary production.

The plaintiff condominium corporation sued 53 defendants for construction deficiencies.

One defendant, Liberty, brought a motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to stay or quash the summary judgment motion, arguing Liberty failed to make proper documentary production and improperly refused questions on cross-examination.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding no grounds to restrict Liberty's right to advance its summary judgment motion, but established a procedure for the plaintiff to bring a specific motion regarding the refused questions and documentary production prior to the hearing of the summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for approval of a proposed settlement on behalf of a minor injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to determine whether the settlement was in the minor's best interest, noting missing information regarding liability, the minor's medical prognosis, the breakdown of the settlement amount, and legal fees.

The court directed the moving party to provide additional materials within 60 days and ordered the materials to be served on the Children's Lawyer for a report and recommendations.

The appellant appealed decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming a physician's finding of incapacity to consent to treatment and confirming the renewal of a community treatment order.

The appellant argued the order was procedurally invalid because not all parties signed the treatment plan within 72 hours of the physician's examination.

The court held that the Mental Health Act does not require other participants to execute the plan within 72 hours of the physician's examination.

The court also found the Board's decisions regarding the appellant's incapacity and the likelihood of substantial mental deterioration were reasonable.

The appeals were dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's occupier's liability action.

The plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on a vinyl floor in the corridor outside her apartment but could not identify any hazard or unsafe condition that caused the fall.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the plaintiff failed to provide objective evidence of an unsafe condition or a breach of the occupier's duty of care.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an action for condominium deficiencies against the condominium corporation, board members, and the vendor.

Multiple third, fourth, and fifth party claims were subsequently issued, resulting in nineteen parties.

A case management conference was convened to address the scheduling of examinations for discovery and mediation.

To balance the parties' discovery rights with the need for proportionality and cost-efficiency, the court ordered time-limited 'summary' examinations of three hours per witness to take place prior to a mandatory mediation session.

If the matter does not settle at mediation, full examinations will be completed thereafter.

The defendant appealed a master's decision dismissing its motion to transfer a Simplified Procedure action to the Small Claims Court.

The master had declined the transfer because the action was already scheduled for a summary trial in the Superior Court, and a transfer would cause prejudicial delay.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the master's exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed, and fresh evidence admitted on consent did not alter the outcome.