Sara Mosadeq

A secured creditor sought a declaration that the automatic stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act did not prevent it from enforcing an eviction order against a debtor who had filed a consumer proposal.

The court dismissed the request for a declaration but lifted the stay on the basis that the creditor would be materially prejudiced by its continuation.

The court found that the creditor's enforcement of a court judgment for possession was distinct from realizing on security and therefore subject to the stay, but that material prejudice warranted lifting the stay to permit the eviction to proceed.

The court considered whether an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a commercial property remained valid after the buyer failed to waive conditions by the deadline.

The buyer argued the seller had waived strict reliance on deadlines and sought specific performance.

The seller moved for summary judgment, asserting the APS had terminated automatically.

The court found the APS terminated on its terms when the buyer failed to provide the waiver, and that the seller had not waived its rights.

The seller’s summary judgment motion was granted, and the buyer’s request for specific performance was dismissed.

The applicants sought damages for water infiltration in their condominium unit against the vendor and the condominium corporation.

They alleged the vendor knew of the leakage prior to closing and the corporation delayed necessary repairs.

The vendor brought a counter-application for the release of a $75,000 holdback.

The court found that the vendor acted reasonably and responsibly upon discovering new leakage just before closing, and that the condominium corporation also acted reasonably and expeditiously within the constraints of the Tarion New Home Warranty Program, as the water infiltration was a complex, sitewide issue.

The applicants failed to provide sufficient evidentiary basis for their claimed damages and procedurally altered their requested relief at the hearing.

The application was dismissed, and the $75,000 holdback was ordered to be returned to the vendor.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to maintain a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property owned by the defendants.

The plaintiffs had paid deposits for pre-construction townhomes, but the defendants made no progress on the development and attempted to sell the property to a third party.

The defendants argued the CPL should be discharged based on a 'no registration clause' in the agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found a triable issue regarding an interest in land and held that the equitable factors favoured maintaining the CPL to protect the plaintiffs' investments, despite the contractual prohibition.

This endorsement addresses two motions: a charging order sought by Sutherland Law (former counsel for the defendant) for unpaid legal fees, and a motion for directions by the plaintiff regarding the calculation of proceeds from a property sale as per a prior judgment.

The court dismissed the charging order motion, finding no existing fund in the defendant's favour after applying the judgment's formula.

The court accepted the plaintiff's calculations, which determined the defendant's share to be nil, and ordered costs against Sutherland Law and the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages after the defendant failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendant had requested multiple extensions and a price reduction but ultimately failed to obtain financing.

The plaintiff subsequently sold the property to another buyer for a lower price.

The court granted summary judgment, finding a clear breach of contract, and awarded the plaintiff $79,014.94 in damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs, though it declined to award damages related to the plaintiff's mortgage defaults.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property owned by a corporation, alleging he loaned $250,000 to his brother who signed a promissory note agreeing to place a mortgage on the property if he defaulted.

The brother defaulted and it was discovered he had no authority to bind the corporation.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the property and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The applicant sought a contempt order and immediate possession of a property ordered to be partitioned and sold, alleging the respondent interfered with the sale.

The respondent argued issues with service and hearsay.

The court found sufficient evidence of the respondent's wilful non-compliance but did not formally issue a contempt order.

Instead, it granted the applicant immediate possession of the property, giving the respondent 45 days to vacate, and ordered the respondent not to interfere with the sale or cause damage.

The court also set aside a previous costs order against the respondent but re-ordered costs in favour of the applicant for the current motion.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's action on a $138,000 promissory note was statute-barred.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff made a clear demand for payment in 2012, which would have triggered the limitation period.

The court found that determining when a demand was made required assessing credibility, which could not be fairly done on a paper record or through a mini-trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.