Starkman v. Home Trust Company, 2015 ONSC 2047
CITATION: Starkman v. Home Trust Company, 2015 ONSC 2047
COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-428137
DATE: 20150331
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Rhonda Michelle Starkman
Plaintiff
– and –
Home Trust Company
Defendant
Self represented
Amanda Jackson, for the Defendant
HEARD: March 9, 2015
ADDENDUM TO REASONS FOR DECISION ISSUED MARCH 18, 2015
CAROLE J. BROWN, J.
[1] This motion, brought by Home Trust for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 51.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as regards mortgages registered on property located at 566 Millwood Road, Toronto, Ontario M4S 1K5 owned by the plaintiff, Rhonda Michelle Starkman, as well as for possession of the property and a declaration of the amounts owing under the two subject mortgages, was heard on March 9 and the decision was rendered March 18, 2015.
[2] Pursuant to that decision, this Court ordered judgment in favour of the defendant, Home Trust, payable by Ms. Starkman as regards the two mortgages, as well as leave to issue a Writ of Possession in respect of the said premises. That Order was as follows:
[36] I order judgment in favour of the defendant, Home Trust, payable by Ms. Starkman, as follows:
As regards the first mortgage, judgment in the amount of $348,575.53 as at August 10, 2010, together with interest thereon at the rate of 1.9% per annum from the said date to the date of judgment;
As regards the second mortgage, judgment in the amount of $118,207.35 as at June 28, 2011, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6.99% per annum from the said date to the date of judgment;
Leave to issue a Writ of Possession in respect of the said premises; and
Post-judgment interest pursuant to the provisions of the courts of Justice act; its costs of this motion on a substantial indemnity basis.
[3] Counsel for Home Trust has requested that this Court specify that paragraph 3 of the Order granted is for a Writ of Possession pursuant to Rule 60.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
[4] The defendant requested an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's request. The defendant's response raised several issues:
The plaintiff submitted that a Writ of Possession should not issue as this would affect her children who were both away at university;
The plaintiff contested the Order as regards partial summary judgment.
The plaintiff submitted that a trial is required to determine all issues in this matter.
[5] As this Court has rendered its decision on the merits of the motion for partial summary judgment, the plaintiff's recourse is not to reopen the hearing before this Court as regards issues that were before this Court and upon which this Court has issued its decision, but to appeal this Court's decision.
[6] As regards the plaintiff's request as set forth at paragraph 3 above, while I believe that my Order, and particularly paragraph 36(3) thereof, did grant leave of the Court to issue a Writ of Possession, for more certainty, I order that leave of the Court is granted to issue a Writ of Possession pursuant to Rule 60.10(1).
[7] Further, Home Trust has provided the calculation of the total amounts outstanding on each mortgage, with the calculation of interest thereon. In her responding correspondence, the plaintiff also contested the amount of arrears and interest owing and provided her own calculations in response. Having reviewed the submissions of both parties in this regard, I accept the defendant's calculation of interest accruing on each mortgage and order judgment on the first mortgage, including principal and interest at 1.9%, in the total amount of $379,059.18 and on the second mortgage, including principal and interest at 6.99%, in the total amount of $148,949.10.
Carole J. Brown, J.
Released: March 31, 2015
CITATION: Starkman v. Home Trust Company, 2015 ONSC 1718
COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-428137
DATE: 20150331
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Rhonda Michelle Starkman
Plaintiff
– and –
Home Trust Company
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Carole J. Brown, J.
Released: March 31, 2015