Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-24-00723231-0000
Date: 2025-06-19
Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
Royal Bank of Canada, Plaintiff
and
The Estate of Morrison Augustin, Deceased and Bridget Daniel, Defendants

Appearances:
Jeffrey Kukla, for the Plaintiff
James Tomlinson, for Bridget Daniel

Heard: June 19, 2025
Released: June 19, 2025
Judge: Merritt

Overview

[1] The Plaintiff, the Royal Bank of Canada (the “Bank”), claims in relation to a mortgage.

[2] The Defendants, the Estate of Morrison Augustin and Bridget Daniel, failed to defend the proceeding and were noted in default.

[3] The Plaintiff brings a motion for default judgment.

[4] On March 10, 2025, Pollak J. ordered the Plaintiff to serve the motion for default judgment and a copy of her endorsement, allowing the Defendants an opportunity to notify the Plaintiff by April 21, 2025, that they seek to respond, failing which the motion would proceed in writing.

[5] The Plaintiff served the endorsement and motion record via regular letter mail to the Defendant, The Estate of Morrison Augustin, Deceased, at Unit 2C, 6 Rosebank Drive, Scarborough, ON M1B 0A1, and to the Defendant, Bridget Daniel, at Unit 2C, 6 Rosebank Drive, Toronto (Scarborough), ON M1B 0A1. The Defendants did not respond.

[6] Mr. James Tomlinson, solicitor for Bridget Daniel, confirmed in his email dated July 24, 2024, that Bridget Daniel was the deceased's spouse and sole beneficiary of the residue of Unit 2C-6 Rosebank Drive, Scarborough, Ontario (the “Property”). The Plaintiff also served the endorsement and motion record on Mr. Tomlinson by email.

Decision

[7] For the reasons that follow, I am granting the Plaintiff an order for possession of the Property.

The Issues

[8] The issues are:

• Issue 1: Do the materials provide a basis for a finding of liability?
• Issue 2: If so, is the Plaintiff entitled to an order for possession?

Analysis

Issue 1: Do the materials provide a basis for a finding of liability?

Consequences of Noting in Default

[9] Pursuant to r. 19.02, having not defended the proceeding, a defendant is deemed to admit the truth of all allegations of fact made in the Statement of Claim.

[10] However, pursuant to r. 19.06, a plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on a motion for judgment or at a trial merely because the facts alleged in the Statement of Claim are deemed to be admitted, unless the facts entitle the plaintiff to judgment.

[11] In particular, r. 19.05 provides that a motion for judgment which involves unliquidated damages shall be supported by evidence given by affidavit.

The Test on a Motion for Default Judgment

[12] The test on a motion for default judgment is:

A. What deemed admissions of fact flow from the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim?
B. Do those deemed admissions of fact entitle the plaintiff, as a matter of law, to judgment on the claim?
C. If they do not, has the plaintiff adduced admissible evidence which, when combined with the deemed admissions, entitle it to judgment on the pleaded claim?
(Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin, 2012 ONSC 2062 at para. 14)

[13] I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has established liability based upon the following deemed admissions from the Statement of Claim, together with the evidence from the affidavit of Jerry Wallace.

[14] Morrison Augustin and the Plaintiff entered into a Royal Credit Line/Mortgage Loan as defined in the RBC Homeline Plan Agreement and RBC Homeline Plan Allocation Agreement (the “Loan”).

[15] The indebtedness is secured by a charge dated July 7, 2016, made between Morrison Augustin and the Plaintiff and registered against the Property on July 7, 2016, in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of the Toronto Land Registry Office (No. 80) as Instrument No. AT4271668 (the “Charge”).

[16] Morrison Augustin is the registered owner of the Property.

[17] Morrison Augustin passed away and his interest in the Loan was transmitted to the Defendant, The Estate of Morrison Augustin, Deceased (the “Estate”). The Estate is indebted to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Loan.

[18] The Defendant, Bridget Daniel, was the spouse of the deceased, Morrison Augustin.

[19] It is a term of the Charge that upon default in payment of any of the indebtedness secured thereunder, the principal shall, at the option of the Plaintiff, become due and payable, and the Plaintiff shall be entitled to possession of the charged property.

[20] Default in payment under the Charge occurred on January 30, 2024, and still continues.

[21] The Plaintiff conducted a search of the court’s records on June 26, 2024, and no record was located of the Estate of Morrison Augustin having been probated. Counsel for Bridget Daniel advised the Plaintiff that Ms. Daniel was applying for a Certificate of Appointment as Estate Trustee, but to date the Plaintiff has not received such Certificate.

Issue 2: Is the Plaintiff entitled to an order for possession?

[22] The facts entitle the Plaintiff to an order for possession because once a default occurs under the Charge, the Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the charged property.

Costs

[23] The Plaintiff requests costs to be assessed and I so order.

Merritt

Released: June 19, 2025