Morrison v. Gadomski, 2025 ONSC 3365
COURT FILE NOS.: CV-23-00000324-0000 and CV-23-00000410-0000
DATE: June 5, 2025
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Nancy Eleanor Morrison, in her capacity as Estate Trustee of the Estate of John Joseph Morrison
AND
Tomasz Gadomski and Caisse Populaire North Bay Limitee
BEFORE: Justice Patrick Hurley
COUNSEL:
Mark Pedersen, for the Applicant
Joseph D. Kennedy, for the Respondent Tomasz Gadomski
Bradley Jackson, for the Respondent Caisse Populaire North Bay Limitee
HEARD: March 17, 2025
Endorsement
Introduction
[1] John Morrison and Tomasz Gadomski operated a retail fishing equipment business in North Bay through a corporation, North Bay Outfitters Inc. (“NBOI”). The business was located at 130 Lakeshore Drive, North Bay (the “Property”).
[2] Mr. Morrison died testate on February 8, 2014. His widow, Nancy Morrison, is the estate trustee and the residuary beneficiary of his estate (the “Estate”). She commenced an application in September 2023 in both her personal capacity and as estate trustee seeking partition and sale of the Property.
[3] Mr. Gadomski commenced a counter-application in November 2023. It is his position that Ms. Morrison sold the Estate’s interest in the Property to him in 2016 and therefore has no legal claim to it.
[4] In January 2024, I made an order, on consent, that the applications be heard together.
The Issues
[5] The parties submitted a document entitled “Issues List” which identified the issues they proposed to argue at the hearing of the consolidated application. It provided:
- Is Gadomski entitled to an Order removing Morrison from title as an Owner of the Subject Property?
- If Gadomski is not entitled to an Order removing Morrison from title as an Owner of the Subject Property, is Gadomski entitled, in the alternative, to an Order declaring Gadomski to be the Owner, in equity, of Morrison’s legal interest in the Subject Property?
- Is Gadomski entitled to an Order compelling the specific performance of a “Share Purchase Agreement” dated December 31, 2015?
- Does Gadomski have an equitable right and/or constructive trust in the Subject Property?
- Is Gadomski entitled to damages from Morrison pursuant to breach of contract, quantum meruit, and/or unjust enrichment?
- Is Morrison entitled to an Order compelling the sale of the Subject Property?
- If Morrison is entitled to an Order compelling the sale of the Subject Property, what terms of sale ought to be included in the said Order?
[6] In my view, there are only two issues that I need to decide:
- Did Ms. Morrison sell the Estate’s interest in the Property to Mr. Gadomski in 2016?
- If Ms. Morrison did not, should I grant an order for partition and sale of the Property and on what terms?
[7] The evidentiary record consisted of the affidavit of Ms. Morrison sworn September 25, 2023; the affidavits of Mr. Gadomski sworn November 13 and December 18, 2023; and the transcripts of their cross-examinations on these affidavits.
[8] The parties agreed that I could decide the consolidated application on this written record with one exception – if I find that Ms. Morrison did not sell the Estate’s interest in the Property in 2016, the issues of occupation rent and carrying costs in relation to the Property would be deferred to another date.
[9] Ms. Morrison named Caisse Populaire North Bay Limitee (“CPNBL”) as a respondent because it still holds a mortgage on the Property. The balance of the mortgage, as of March 5, 2025, was $155,094.78. CPNBL takes no position on the consolidated application except that, if a sale of the Property is ordered, there should be terms included in the order to ensure the mortgage is paid in full upon any sale.
The Evidence
[10] NBOI was incorporated in July 2009. Mr. Morrison and Mr. Gadomski were officers and directors of the corporation and each owned 50% of the issued shares. The address of NBOI at the time was 108 Pineland Drive, Rutherglen.
[11] In May 2011, Mr. Morrison and Mr. Gadomski purchased the Property for $310,000. They held title as tenants in common, each holding a 50% interest in the Property. The purchase price was completely funded by a loan from CPNBL, and it was secured by mortgage on the Property in that amount. Mr. Gadomski testified that the original plan was for the corporation to purchase the property, but CPNBL would not loan the money to NBOI.
[12] Ms. Morrison was not involved in the operation of NBOI. After her husband died in February 2014, she moved from North Bay to Belleville where her son Craig Utvich lived.
[13] In early September 2014, Ms. Morrison and Mr. Gadomski first discussed what might be done about the Estate’s interest in the business.
[14] Mr. Gadomski’s spouse, Edy, emailed Ms. Morrison on September 7 proposing they talk about “settling” this issue and the next day she suggested that Ms. Morrison contact a lawyer about it.
[15] Ms. Morrison responded the same day, stating:
“Hi. I do not have a lawyer here. Is there any reason why our corporate lawyer couldn’t handle this? We are simply coming to an agreement between the two of us. If we both agree to this I need only to sign all over to Tom. I am willing to put this matter to rest ASAP. So whenever yous [sic] are ready, come up with an offer.”
[16] Ms. Morrison was referring to a North Bay lawyer, John D’Agostino, who had acted for Mr. Morrison and Mr. Gadomski when they incorporated NBOI and later when they purchased the Property.
[17] Mr. Gadomski replied by email on September 10, stating that, once they reached an agreement, he would consult Mr. D’Agostino. The email continued:
The truth of the matter is that both our families invested a lot of time and money in this business. As of today, there is no way of recouping it. There is no profit. We are still making payments for last year GST to Canada Revenue as we are not able to pay them all at once. We have line of credit and credit card where we are paying minimums, which is OK but balance is consider as debt. Both partners in Corporation are personally liable for it. Also business owes me two years of back pay since I have been working here without any gratification. That needs to be included in our talks.
If we don’t want to take under consideration option of business bankruptcy, that wouldn’t be good for either of us, there are still two options that we want you to be fully aware of: - you can still try to sell your shares to third-party for the price you want or we can come to agreement that reflects business situation.
With this being said we can offer you $20,000.00 with 30 days to get a loan. You must understand that this is our effort to separate with you in good standing. As you can see from last year tax return business is still in negative balance, worth nothing.
[18] Ms. Morrison replied the next day:
Hi! There is a little matter of $75,000.00. This money was used from the sale of my house to pay for an outstanding credit card. I am course want that money ASAP. Need it to be able to buy a house. After that is repaid, we should be able to come to some kind of an understanding. John did have a proposal that he gave to you and Thomas a few years back. We can talk about that at a later date. The building is certainly worth something.
[19] Mr. Utvich took over the negotiations on his mother’s behalf. On September 20, he emailed Mr. Gadomski stating that his mother had asked him to “assist in the process of settling the business issues”. He requested information about NBOI’s financial circumstances, an appraisal of the building and a mortgage statement.
[20] The following month, he emailed Mr. Gadomski stating that his mother thought the offer of $20,000 was too low and proposed $35,000. Mr. Gadomski initially stated that he was unable to pay a higher amount but eventually they agreed on $27,500.
[21] Mr. Utvich emailed Mr. Gadomski on February 28, 2016:
As per your and my conversation, my mom has agreed to the following:
$27,500 buyout, with $7500 due within the next 10 business days. The remaining $20,000 in 4 equal instalments of $5000, due every three months for the next 12 months, due on the anniversary day of the initial $7500 payment or a lump sum thereafter if you so desire. Any missed payments are subject to interest charges and possible litigation.
[22] Mr. D’Agostino had prepared an agreement entitled Share Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”) which Mr. Gadomski sent to Mr. Utvich. He evidently retained a lawyer to review it. He told Mr. Gadomski in an email that he had “sent the paperwork to the lawyer”; that he had an appointment with the lawyer; and that “my lawyer indicates that the phrase, ‘the executor of John’ needs to be added to the agreement. Is this possible?”
[23] Mr. Utvich did not swear an affidavit. At her cross-examination, Ms. Morrison refused to identify the lawyer that her son was referring to in his emails to Mr. Gadomski.
[24] In her affidavit, Ms. Morrison asserted that she did not have legal representation at the time: “I did not have the assistance of a lawyer when I reviewed and executed the SPA”. She was asked at her cross-examination if she consulted a lawyer regarding the SPA and she answered: “I must have.” She attended a lawyer’s office to sign it but refused to answer questions about any advice that she received from the lawyer.
[25] The parties to the SPA are the Estate and Ms. Morrison as Executor for the Estate who are described as the “Vendors”; Mr. Gadomski is identified as the “Purchaser”; and NBOI and Performance Fishing Tackle as the “Corporation”.
[26] Under the SPA, the Vendors agreed to sell the shares of NBOI to the Purchaser for $27,500 at a price of $550 a share with the first payment within 10 days of execution of the SPA and the balance of $20,000 in four equal instalments every three months.
[27] Article 5 of the SPA has the heading “Conditions Precedent To The Performance By The Parties Of Their Obligations Under This Agreement.”
[28] Section 5.01 states:
Conditions of Purchaser – The obligations of the Purchaser to complete the purchase of the Purchased Shares hereunder shall be subject to the satisfaction of, or compliance with, at or before the Closing of each of the following conditions precedent (each of which is hereby acknowledged to be inserted for the exclusive benefit of the Purchaser and may be waived by him in whole or in part).
[29] Ss.5.01(b) states:
Performance of Obligations – The Vendors shall have performed or complied with, in all respects, all of their obligations, covenants and agreements hereunder.
[30] Ss. 5.01(f) states:
Sale of Lakeshore Drive Property to the Purchaser – The Vendors shall have entered into a binding agreement of purchase and sale whereby the Estate of John Morrison shall have agreed to sell its interest in and to the property located at 130 Lakeshore Drive, North Bay, Ontario, P1A 2A8.
[31] Ss.5.01(g) required Ms. Morrison and the Estate to provide an “Indemnity Agreement” in which they agreed to indemnify and save Mr. Gadomski harmless with respect to any matter related to the administration of the Estate.
[32] S. 5.03(c) required Mr. Gadomski and the Corporation to provide an Indemnity Agreement in which they agreed to indemnify and save Ms. Morrison and the Estate harmless with respect to the mortgage and any personal guarantees given by John Morrison to support the indebtedness of the Corporation to a third party.
[33] The Indemnity Agreements were included in schedules to the SPA.
[34] Article 6.01 stated:
Actions to Satisfy Closing Condition – Each of the parties hereby agrees to take all such actions as are within its power to control and to use its best efforts to cause the actions to be taken which are not within its powers to control, so as to ensure compliance with any conditions set forth in Article 5.0 hereof which are for the benefit of the other party.
[35] Although the SPA is dated December 31, 2015, it was not executed by the parties until March 2016. Ms. Morrison executed the SPA at the office of a Belleville lawyer, Wendy Elliott.
[36] On March 29, 2016, Mr. D’Agostino sent copies of the fully executed SPA and the two Indemnity Agreements to Ms. Morrison.
[37] In her affidavit filed in support of the application for partition and sale of the Property, Ms. Morrison deposed that Mr. Gadomski paid only $7,500 to her. This is not true. He paid the full amount of $27,500 in compliance with the SPA. She admitted that he did so at her cross-examination.
[38] Ms. Morrison did not formally transfer the shares in NBOI nor the Estate’s interest in the Property to Mr. Gadomski.
[39] Neither Ms. Morrison nor the Estate have made any payments under the mortgage since the death of Mr. Morrison nor contributed to any of the carrying costs of the Property.
[40] The principal owing under the mortgage as of the date of Mr. Morrison’s death was $296,667.81. [^1]
[41] Several years after the execution of the SPA, Mr. Gadomski attempted to refinance the mortgage. He asked Ms. Morrison to transfer the Estate’s interest in the Property to him. She refused. She obtained a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee in August 2023 and commenced this proceeding the following month. She refused to produce the application for the Certificate of Appointment which would have disclosed her valuation of the Estate’s interest in the Property as of the date of death.
[42] At her cross-examination, Ms. Morrison gave the following evidence about her understanding of the purpose of the SPA:
Q. But was that your understanding that you received that money from Tomasz and in exchange he got the property?
A. That’s what was settled, yes.
Q. When you signed that agreement, Ms. Morrison, you understood you were selling the shares on behalf of John’s estate in the company and selling the property, that’s what you told me earlier. Is that accurate?
A. That’s accurate.
[43] In her affidavit, Ms. Morrison deposed:
“The SPA was rescinded on December 31, 2015 by operation of the non-satisfaction of many of the said true conditions precedent. As such, the SPA is not binding upon myself, Mr. Gadomski, or NBOI.”
[44] She was asked about this assertion at the cross-examination:
Q. Paragraph thirty-three (33) alleges that the agreement was rescinded. If that is, in fact, true did you return or refund any of the twenty-seven, five hundred dollars (27,500) to Tomasz? Yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Thank you.
A. What a stupid question.
[45] Mr. Gadomski testified that he understood the payment of $27,500 was for the shares and the Property:
Q. It’s your understanding and your evidence that Nancy Morrison was obliged, by way of the share purchase agreement, to transfer you fifty (50) class “A” common shares in North Bay Outfitters Inc. and a fifty percent (50%) ownership interest in One Thirty (130) Lakeshore Drive in exchange for a total of twenty-seven thousand, five hundred (27,500). Correct?
A. Correct.
The Law
a. Interpretation of Contracts
[46] In Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Rothstein, J. set out the modern approach to the interpretation of contracts, identifying the following principles:
i. The court should have regard for the surrounding circumstances of the contract, often referred to as the factual matrix.
ii. A practical, common-sense approach should be taken rather than reliance on technical rules of construction.
iii. The overriding concern is to determine “the intent of the parties and the scope of their understanding”.
iv. The contract is to be read as a whole, giving the words used their ordinary grammatical meaning consistent with the surrounding circumstances. Because words can have different meanings, the factual matrix is important, citing with approval the following passage from the decision of the House of Lords in Reardon Smith Line v. Hansen-Tangen [1976] 3 All E.R. 570:
No contracts are made in a vacuum: there is always a setting in which they have to be placed… In a commercial contract, it is certainly right that the court should know the commercial purpose of the contract and this in turn presupposes knowledge of the genesis of the transaction, the background, the context, the market in which the parties are operating.
v. It is the objective intent of the parties that is paramount. [^2]
[47] In Weyerhaeuser Company Limited v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2017 ONCA 1007, Brown, J.A. stated at para. 65:
When interpreting a contract, an adjudicator should:
(i) determine the intention of the parties in accordance with the language they have used in the written document, based upon the "cardinal presumption" that they have intended what they have said;
(ii) read the text of the written agreement as a whole, giving the words used their ordinary and grammatical meaning, in a manner that gives meaning to all of its terms and avoids an interpretation that would render one or more of its terms ineffective.
(iii) read the contract in the context of the surrounding circumstances known to the parties at the time of the formation of the contract. The surrounding circumstances, or factual matrix, include facts that were known or reasonably capable of being known by the parties when they entered into the written agreement, such as facts concerning the genesis of the agreement, its purpose, and the commercial context in which the agreement was made. However, the factual matrix cannot include evidence about the subjective intention of the parties; and
(iv) read the text in a fashion that accords with sound commercial principles and good business sense, avoiding a commercially absurd result, objectively assessed.
b. Partition and Sale
[48] The owner of property has a prima facie right to an order for partition and sale but the court has the discretion to decline such an order if the applicant has engaged in malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct. The onus is on the respondent to establish one of these circumstances: Sauve v. Davidson, 2024 ONSC 2091, paras 18-23.
[49] Oppressive circumstances may arise where the sale would impose a great hardship on the respondent. There must be more than mere inconvenience and adverse financial consequences. I should adopt a contextual approach, taking into account the relationship between the parties, how it arose, their reasonable expectations, the nature of the conduct, and the impact of a court-ordered sale: Stothers v. Kazeks, 2023 ONSC 5021, paras 45-48.
Positions of the Parties
[50] Ms. Morrison submits that under the SPA, Mr. Gadomski could decline to purchase the Estate’s 50% shareholding in NBOI if Ms. Morrison did not enter into an agreement of purchase and sale with respect to the Property in accordance with article 5.01(f). She says that this term was a “true condition precedent” rather than a “performance obligation”.
[51] As she put it in the factum referring to this submission:
“There is tremendous uncertainty as to what the SPA requires Nancy to do respect in the sale of the Property; moreover, at least in our submission, the most coherent interpretation of the SPA is that it imposes precisely no performance obligation upon Nancy in this respect; rather, insofar as the SPA speaks to the Property, at all, it merely provides Gadomski the benefit of a condition precedent to his obligation to purchase Nancy’s shares in NBOI”. [Emphasis in original]
[52] If this position is accepted, Ms. Morrison contends that the Estate still has a 50% ownership interest in the Property and a prima facie right to an order for partition and sale. Mr. Gadomski has failed to establish any malicious, vexatious or oppressive conduct on the part of Ms. Morrison.
[53] Mr. Gadomski submits the proper interpretation of the SPA is that he agreed to purchase the Estate’s interest in the business which consisted of 50% of the shares in NBOI and its 50% ownership of the Property, for $27,500. He emphasizes that Ms. Morrison agreed that the deal included the shares and the Property, and she was paid in full by Mr. Gadomski. Her subsequent conduct affirms that the parties had entered into a binding agreement and that Mr. Gadomski had fulfilled his contractual obligations. Ms. Morrison did not fulfil her obligation as the personal representative of the Estate to transfer the Estate’s ownership interest in the Property to Mr. Gadomski. He is entitled to an order for specific performance compelling her to do so.
[54] If I find that is not the correct interpretation of the SPA, Mr. Gadomski asserts that partition and sale of the Property is not an appropriate remedy. There are exceptional circumstances. He has paid all the carrying costs of the Property since 2014 without any financial contribution by Ms. Morrison or the Estate. Both Mr. Gadomski and Ms. Morrison believed that, with the execution of the SPA, they had reached a final settlement. The business is Mr. Gadomski’s livelihood and to compel the sale of the Property where he has operated the business for so many years would constitute a great hardship.
Analysis
[55] Mr. Gadomski and Mr. Morrison ran a small business together that was not very profitable. It was a 50/50 partnership. When her husband died, Ms. Morrison had a decision to make about the business – step into the shoes of her late husband and operate it with Mr. Gadomski; find a third party to buy the Estate’s interest in the business; or make a deal with Mr. Gadomski to buy out the Estate’s interest in it. She chose the last option and delegated the authority to her son Craig to negotiate the purchase price. This necessarily involved reaching an agreement on the price and protection from any future liability under the mortgage.
[56] The negotiations between Mr. Gadomski and Mr. Utvich lasted several months. Mr. Utvich requested relevant financial records that would permit him (and his mother) to assess the value of the business and the Property. They exchanged offers. Both sides had lawyers. The uncontradicted evidence is that the business was in a precarious financial position. There was no evidence presented by either party about the fair market value of the Property in 2014 but it had been purchased only three years before for $310,000 and the outstanding balance on the mortgage was $296,667.81 as of the date of Mr. Morrison’s death. I can reasonably infer that the Property had not likely increased in value by a significant amount and, after the deduction of the transaction costs associated with a sale and payment of the mortgage, there would be little, if any, money left over to divide. This is the factual matrix.
[57] Ms. Morrison would, understandably, want finality as would Mr. Gadomski. For Ms. Morrison, that would mean a financial payment and protection of both her and the Estate from any liability under the mortgage. Mr. Gadomski, in return for the payment, would receive the Estate’s shares in NBOI and its ownership interest in the Property. He would also want protection against any claim related to the administration of the Estate.
[58] The subjective intent of the parties is not legally relevant but the scope of their understanding of the agreement is. Clearly, based on her testimony at her cross-examination, Ms. Morrison understood that the deal included the shares and the Property for $27,500. So, too, did Mr. Gadomski.
[59] Admittedly, the SPA was longer and more complicated than it had to be in the circumstances. [^3] Although the term “condition precedent” is used as a heading, Article 5.0 is, I find, simply reciting the documentary obligations of the parties, most of which concerned the completion of standard legal documents for a transaction of this nature.
[60] Ms. Morrison’s proposed interpretation would lead to a commercial absurdity. Instead of bringing a final resolution as the parties clearly wanted, the SPA would inevitably lead to more negotiations and, pending an agreement on the Property, the Estate would have to continue paying its share of the mortgage and the carrying costs of the Property. Mr. Gadomski, in turn, could withhold any payment to Ms. Morrison and the Estate until that second agreement was negotiated.
[61] There would be no reason for Ms. Morrison to request an indemnity in relation to the mortgage if the Property was not part of the deal. Further, if the parties still considered it a jointly held asset, they would have addressed how the costs associated with that asset would be paid moving forward; what would happen if one of them failed to pay their share of the costs; the consequences of any default in the payment of the mortgage; and a mechanism for the future sale of the Property. These are not minor details that they would have left out of their written agreement as Ms. Morrison now claims. It was the most substantial liability for both Mr. Gadomski and the Estate.
[62] A practical, common-sense interpretation, bearing in mind that the objective intent of the parties is paramount, leads to the conclusion that the parties intended one agreement, not two. I find this is the proper interpretation of the SPA: the assets of the business included the shares of NBOI and the Property and, for its 50% interest in the business, Mr. Gadomski paid the Estate $27,500 and assumed all liability for the mortgage and the other carrying costs of the Property.
[63] Except for the Indemnity Agreements, the paperwork contemplated by Article 5.0 was not completed. It appears that Ms. Morrison and the Estate failed to provide an affidavit (5.01(a)); deliver releases (5.01(d) and 5.01(e)); enter into a binding agreement of purchase and sale with respect to the Property (5.01(f)); and deliver resignations (wrongly numbered as (5.01(f)). In hindsight, Mr Gadomski or Mr. D’Agostino should have followed up with Ms. Morrison about these documents; that might have served to avoid this litigation.
[64] Mr. Gadomski is entitled to a declaration that he is the sole owner of the Property. Ms. Morrison submitted that Mr. Gadomski’s claim is statute-barred because he became aware in 2019 that Ms. Morrison was not willing to transfer the Estate’s interest in the Property to him and he did not commence his counter-application until November 2023. Under that theory, Ms. Morrison’s application could also be statute-barred. In any event, I agree with Mr. Gadomski’s submission that, if there is a limitation period, it is the 10-year period under the Real Property Limitations Act, RSO 1990, c L.15.
[65] It is not strictly necessary to consider the issue of partition and sale. However, had I found in favour of Ms. Morrison’s interpretation of the SPA, I would exercise my discretion and not order partition and sale. There are exceptional circumstances. Mr. Gadomski has operated the business for the past 11 years and paid all the carrying costs associated with the Property. There is goodwill attached to the location of a business which is very hard to calculate and Mr. Gadomski would not be compensated for it in a court-ordered sale. Ms. Morrison waited more than seven years before asserting that the SPA did not include the Estate’s interest in the Property. She has not provided any explanation for this delay. Mr. Gadomski had a reasonable expectation that he would continue to run the business in the same location. As did Ms. Morrison until she changed her mind years after the SPA was signed.
[66] As an alternative to partition and sale, there can be an accounting. If the SPA is rescinded as Ms. Morrison claimed in her affidavit that it should be, she will have to return the $27,500 with accrued interest to Mr. Gadomski. Any valuation of the business and the Property would have to be as of the date of Mr. Morrison’s death. The Estate will have to reimburse Mr. Gadomski for its share of the carrying costs of the Property. Occupation rent, if any, will have to be determined. The accounting will require expert evidence. It may very well be that, after the adjudication of these issues, Ms. Morrison would owe money to Mr. Gadomski.
Disposition
[67] For these reasons, Ms. Morrison’s application for partition and sale is dismissed. Mr. Gadomski’s counter-application is granted. I find that he is the sole owner of the Property. The parties should be able to agree on the terms of a judgment which reflects Mr. Gadomski’s ownership of the Property and can be registered on title. I do not believe that Ms. Morrison would have to execute any documents to transfer the Estate’s interest in the Property but, if counsel disagree, I will give them the opportunity to make further submissions. If Ms. Morrison does have to execute any documents, they shall be prepared by Mr. Gadomski and be at his expense.
[68] Mr. Gadomski is the successful party and is presumptively entitled to costs. The parties should make reasonable efforts to agree on the amount of costs. If they cannot, counsel shall upload their costs outlines to Case Center as directed by Muszynski, J. in her endorsement dated November 14, 2024. In addition to the costs outline, Mr. Gadomski can deliver written submissions not to exceed two pages within 15 days of the date of the release of this decision. Ms. Morrison can deliver responding written submissions of the same length within 10 days of receiving the submissions of Mr. Gadomski. Counsel shall notify my judicial assistant at Sarah.Wheaton@ontario.ca when those written submissions have been filed.
[69] The respondent CPNBL is also entitled to costs. Its costs outline should be uploaded to Case Center and its written submissions can be of the same length.
Date: June 5, 2025
Patrick Hurley
[^1]: This is my calculation based on the terms of the mortgage. The loan amount was $310,000. The interest rate was 7.5% per annum. The monthly payment was $2,475.67 with the first payment due June 6, 2012.
[^2]: Paras. 46-49 and 57–64.
[^3]: For example, the agreement could have been: “Tomasz Gadomski shall pay $27,500 to Nancy Morrison for the Estate’s shares in NBOI and its ownership interest in the Property. The parties shall indemnify each other against any liability under the mortgage on the Property and relating to the administration of the Estate. The parties shall execute any necessary documents to give effect to this agreement”.