Canada’s Choice Investments Inc. v. Graham, 2025 ONSC 678
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CANADA’S CHOICE INVESTMENTS INC.
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim
– and –
JUDITH LOUISE GRAHAM
Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim
Eliezer Karp, for the Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim
Evan Snyder and Bethanie Pascutto, for the Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim
HEARD: January 29, 2025
Ruling re motion for leave to amend statement of defence and counterclaim, consolidation, coNversion of action from foreclosure to sale, and validating service
CHRISTIE J.
1This is a motion brought by the Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Judith Louise Graham, seeking the following relief:
a. Leave to amend the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim;
b. Consolidating this action with the action bearing Court File No. CV-22-00001518-0000 (the “Flex Home / CHC Action”);
c. Converting this action from a foreclosure action into a sale action; and
d. Validating service of this motion on the proposed Defendant by Counterclaim, Austin Acheson.
2The Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim, Canada’s Choice Investments Inc.(“CCII”), a private lender, as well as the proposed Defendant, 2799953 Ontario Inc. o/a Canada’s Choice Capital (“CCC”), both represented by the same counsel, oppose some of the relief sought but not others. Specifically, with respect to the request to amend, they oppose the joinder of 1985886 Ontario Ltd. o/a Eliminate Contract Consultants Ltd. ("ECC"), 2758729 Ontario Inc. o/a Complete Home Comfort, Complete Home Comfort Inc.) and 2820690 Ontario Inc. o/a Complete Home Comfort (collectively, "CHC"), and 2748204 Ontario Inc. o/a Flex Home Loans ("Flex Home"). For the same reasons they oppose the addition of these parties, they also oppose the consolidation of this action with the Flex Home / CHC action. The Responding Parties do not oppose the conversion of the action from a foreclosure action into a sale action and do not oppose validating service of the motion on Austin Acheson.
3All other proposed Defendants by Counterclaim, many of whom are represented by counsel, were served with this motion, with the exception of Austin Acheson who is said to be aware of it. The motion is unopposed by the other Proposed Defendants by Counterclaim, none of whom appeared at the motion personally or through counsel with the exception of Flex Home, who appeared through counsel, but made no submissions.
4The parties participating in this motion disagree about the essence of this action. Ms. Graham, the Moving Party, a borrower in her 80’s, characterizes this as a mortgage action which arises out of a series of door-to door sales frauds, all of which are interrelated. Ms. Graham states:
Through a series of predatory transactions, Ms. Graham was repeatedly solicited at her home and induced to enter into unconscionable home service contracts and security agreements, for which Notices of Security Interest ("NOSIs") and small mortgages were registered on title to Ms. Graham's home. These transactions culminated in an agent of CCII attending at Ms. Graham's home and inducing her to borrow from CCII the principal amount of $200,000 for a 12- month term at an interest rate of 25%. The CCII loan was secured by a charge registered on title to Ms. Graham's home.
CCII and CCC characterize this action as a simple mortgage enforcement action, and that CCII’s mortgage is unrelated to any of the events that came before it. The Responding Parties state:
All of these allegedly Impugned Agreements are completely separate from and have no relation to the Mortgage between CCI and the Defendant, other than that CCI's mortgage proceeds were used to pay off some of the amounts owing under these contracts. In fact, most-if not all- of these agreements were entered into before CCI came into existence.
5This action commenced as a mortgage action by CCII against Judith Graham. The Statement of Claim was issued on June 7, 2022. On July 6, 2022, Ms. Graham served a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, naming CCII as the sole Defendant by Counterclaim. On July 26, 2022, CCII served its Defence to Counterclaim. This action has not progressed to the discovery stage.
6On October 24, 2022, Ms. Graham commenced the separate Flex Home / CHC Action. This was said to be done to preserve her claim, given a limitation period concern, pending the service and hearing of the present motion to amend. No steps have been taken in the Flex Home / CHC Action, other than service of the claim.
7The main issue to be decided by this court is the request for leave to amend, and only as it relates to the addition of three parties. The determination on this issue will decide the consolidation issue.
8The arguments require this court to look at 1) the law in relation to joinder of parties and amendments of pleadings; and 2) the requirements for a pleading of unlawful act conspiracy.
9The legal framework for granting leave to amend is set out in Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Rule 26.01 states:
On motion at any stage of an action the court shall grant leave to amend a pleading on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment.
In the absence of non-compensable prejudice, there is a presumption that amendments will be permitted.
10However, in this case, given that the amendments relate to joining parties, Rule 5 must also be considered:
5.02 (2) Two or more persons may be joined as defendants or respondents where,
(a) there are asserted against them, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, any claims to relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;
(b) a common question of law or fact may arise in the proceeding;
(c) there is doubt as to the person or persons from whom the plaintiff or applicant is entitled to relief;
(d) damage or loss has been caused to the same plaintiff or applicant by more than one person, whether or not there is any factual connection between the several claims apart from the involvement of the plaintiff or applicant, and there is doubt as to the person or persons from whom the plaintiff or applicant is entitled to relief or the respective amounts for which each may be liable; or
(e) it appears that their being joined in the same proceeding may promote the convenient administration of justice.
5.03 (1) Every person whose presence is necessary to enable the court to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in a proceeding shall be joined as a party to the proceeding.
5.04 (2) At any stage of a proceeding the court may by order add, delete or substitute a party or correct the name of a party incorrectly named, on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment.
5.05 Where it appears that the joinder of multiple claims or parties in the same proceeding may unduly complicate or delay the hearing or cause undue prejudice to a party, the court may,
(a) order separate hearings;
(b) require one or more of the claims to be asserted, if at all, in another proceeding;
(c) order that a party be compensated by costs for having to attend, or be relieved from attending, any part of a hearing in which the party has no interest;
(d) stay the proceeding against a defendant or respondent, pending the hearing of the proceeding against another defendant or respondent, on condition that the party against whom the proceeding is stayed is bound by the findings made at the hearing against the other defendant or respondent; or
(e) make such other order as is just.
11In Steel Tree Structures Ltd. v Gemco Solar Inc., 2016 ONSC 955, Steel Tree was appealing an order denying leave to amend their statement of claim to add their prior lawyers and paralegal as Defendants. The Court stated:
23In Plante v. Industrial Alliance Life Insurance Co., 2003 CanLII 64295 (ON SC), [2003] O.J. No. 3034, Master MacLeod set out the test for adding a party under rule 5.04(2). The following summary of the test is consistent with the extensive judicial authority concerning the test:
27 The tests for adding a party under rule 5.04(2) may therefore be stated as follows:
a) The proposed amendment must meet all of the tests under Rule 26.01.
b) Joinder should be appropriate under Rule 5.02(2) or required under Rule 5.03. The addition of the parties should arise out of the same transaction or occurrence (Rule 5.02(2)(a)), should have a question of law or fact in common (Rule 5.02(2)(b)), or the addition of the party should promote the convenient administration of justice (Rule 5.02(2)(e)). Adding a party will be particularly appropriate if it is unclear which of the original defendant or the proposed defendant may be liable (Rules 5.02(2)(c) or (d)), or if it is necessary that the proposed defendant be bound by the outcome of the proceeding or his or her participation is otherwise necessary to allow the court to adjudicate effectively (Rule 5.03(1)).
c) Joinder should not be inappropriate under Rule 5.03(6) or 5.05. The addition of a party should not unduly delay or complicate a hearing or cause undue prejudice to the other party. In a case-managed proceeding, it may also be appropriate to withhold consent if it will cause significant disruption to the court-ordered schedule: Belsat Video Marketing Inc. v. Astral Communications Inc. (1999), 1999 CanLII 1092 (ON CA), 86 C.P.R. (3d) 413, 118 O.A.C. 105 (C.A.).
d) Addition of a party will not be permitted if it is shown to be an abuse of process. Abuse of process will exist where the addition of a party is for an improper purpose such as solely to obtain discovery from them, to put unfair pressure on the other side to settle, to harass the other party or for purely tactical reasons. National Trust Co. v. Furbacher, [1994] O.J. No. 2385 (QL) (Gen. Div.); MacRae v. Lecompte (1983), 1983 CanLII 3052 (ON SC), 143 D.L.R. (3d) 219, 32 C.P.C. 78 (Ont. H.C.J.). [Footnote omitted]
24The initial question for the court to ask under rules 26 and 5.04(2) is whether the proposed defendant would suffer non-compensable prejudice. While under rule 5.04(2), the court has the discretion to deny the amendment in the absence of non-compensable prejudice, such discretion should not be invoked often. Added complication to the action and increased work and legal expense is not the type of non-compensable prejudice envisioned by rules 26 and 5.04(2) (see Voutour v. Pfizer Canada Inc., [2008] O.J. No. 3070 at para. 21; Mazzuca v. Silvercreek Pharmacy Ltd. 2001 CanLII 8620 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 4567 at paras. 25, 30 and 84; Schembri v. Way, 2012 ONCA 620 at paras. 25-26 and 42-44).
12In the present case, there is no non-compensable prejudice. The opposing parties point only to unduly extending the time, efforts, and resources required to prosecute this action. As stated in Steel Tree, this is not the non-compensable prejudice envisioned by the Rules. In Rule 5.05, which CCII / CCC points to, the wording is “unduly complicate”. While joining these parties may make the proceedings more complicated, in the sense of it being longer, involving more discovery, and further expense, the complication is not undue. The narrative is somewhat complicated, and a lot of people are allegedly involved. The dynamics between the parties will need to be assessed. However, none of this amounts to undue complication.
13It should also be noted that CCII / CCC are only opposing the addition of three parties, ECC, CHC, and Flex Home. They are not opposing the six or seven other parties sought to be added. This would seem to belie any stated concern about added parties causing undue complication and delay.
14As for any abuse of process, counsel for the opposing parties indicated that they were not alleging such, however, during submissions, counsel suggested an underlying strategy on the part of Ms. Graham “to blow up” this litigation to the extent that it is no longer reasonable for CCII to pursue. There is absolutely no basis upon which to support this claim. Ms. Graham is seemingly seeking to pursue what she believes to be legitimate claims against CCII and the Proposed Defendants by Counterclaim. The merits of the claims do not need to be determined on this motion. It should also be noted that counsel for CCII / CCC refers to the small amount at issue - $200,000 – as compared to the increased legal costs that joinder will create. While this may be small for these entities, it may not be for Ms. Graham, who faces losing her home or financial ruin. It is not an abuse of process to aggressively pursue those potentially liable and to seek to have them all present in one action.
15The language in Rule 5.02(2) makes it clear that this court has a discretion as to joining or not joining parties, although Steel Tree suggests that the discretion should be used sparingly (para 24 and 29). In looking at the disjunctive factors to consider in Rule 5.02(2), this court agrees with the moving party that all five factors are met in this case:
a. Same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences – In assessing this factor, “the facts pleaded are taken to be true and provable (subject to unprovable assumptive or speculative conclusions) and the court is to assess the tenability of the claim on that basis.” Schembri v. Way, 2012 ONCA 620, para 43. In this case, the facts pleaded include the following:
i. October 2020 – CHC solicits Ms. Graham for some vague home services. Flex Home purports to finance the services with a loan of $30,999.85, secured by a mortgage registered on title to Ms. Graham’s home.
ii. February 2021 – A law clerk with KMB Law, the law firm where Danielle Harrison was employed, registers notice on title in favour of CCC in the amount of $14,924.00. The NOSI is for vaguely described home improvements.
iii. April – May 2021 – ECC, a purported debt consolidation company, with Austin Acheson as the representative, approaches Ms. Graham. Mr. Acheson seems to know about the debts and suggests to her that she needs help to consolidate those debts. He gets her to sign a contract with ECC, under which ECC agreed to reduce or eliminate her obligations with home service companies at a cost of $20,000. Mr. Acheson returns and gets her to sign a duplicate agreement – although it is not clear why.
iv. May – June 2021 – Mr. Acheson tells Ms. Graham that she should get mortgage financing to pay for the ECC fees, but that she will need to show the lender she is renovating the property. Mr. Acheson solicits Ms. Graham to enter into an agreement with CHC for kitchen renovations.
v. June 2021 – Mr. Acheson gets Ms. Graham to sign for a $200,000 CCII mortgage. Danielle Harrison acts on the transaction. Of the $200,000, $50,000 was retained by CCII as pre-paid interest, $6,000 was retained by CCII as a lender’s fee, $3,200 was paid to Centum as a broker’s fee, and $2,500 was paid to W.I.R.E. LLP. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Harrison paid out Flex Home, CCC, KMB Law fees, RBC discharge costs, and title insurance. Just over $80,000 was left. Within a day or two of this being deposited into Ms. Graham’s account, Mr. Acheson reattends the home and has her sign two cheques for virtually the full amount in the account to CHC and ECC.
The interconnectedness of these events is clear from these pleadings. The series of transactions start with and end with Flex Home and CHC. Mr. Acheson appears to be knowledgeable and related to all of the entities. Danielle Harrison and the law firm are involved with the CCC NOSI and also with the CCII mortgage. Ms. Graham is allegedly induced into entering into an agreement with CHC to support the mortgage financing with CCII. The CCII mortgage was used to retire the debt from all previous transactions, which includes the three parties being opposed for joinder. The opposition to the joinder is focused on the unreasonableness and unlikelihood of CCII involving itself in these affairs and that many of the facts pleaded may ultimately not be proven, given that there is no issue about Ms. Graham’s capacity. The motives of CCI and the ultimate merits are not determinative of this motion and are not for this court to decide at this stage. The pleadings speak for themselves. This court is not to speculate about how things will ultimately unfold at trial.
b. Common question of law or fact – Mr. Acheson’s role in all of this is a common question that impacts all proposed Defendants by Counterclaim. Ironically, CCII and CCC do not oppose the joinder of Austin Acheson (and others) to these proceedings, but oppose the addition of ECC, CHC, and Flex Home. In this court’s view, given the pleadings, and the acknowledgement that Mr. Acheson is a necessary party to this litigation, these three parties are also necessary. Given the pleaded history between Mr. Acheson and Ms. Graham, which involves there three entities, it would made absolutely no sense to join Mr. Acheson but not these parties. Representations Mr. Acheson made on behalf of certain entities and how it was presented to Ms. Graham is central to the factual matrix. Questions that need to be answered, such as who he was acting for, and in what capacity, cross this entire narrative and are going to get raised with the addition of Mr. Acheson. It only makes sense to join all parties who are likely to be impacted by the answers to these questions.
c. Who is liable and in what amount – Clearly there will be issues about who was directing and participating in all of these activities. The facts are intertwined and complex, involving a lot of moving parts.
d. Convenient administration of justice – Joinder will most certainly promote the convenient administration of justice. In this court’s view, this will avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, in that the current Flex Home / CHC action will be discontinued. This will avoid the risk of inconsistent judicial findings, which is a real risk in this case given the factual determinations that will need to be made about Mr. Acheson’s role.
16CCII / CCC claim that the pleading of conspiracy is deficient in that it is nothing more than a bald assertion without sufficient factual allegations to support it. They stated that Ms. Graham has not explained what is the unlawful act and how Danielle Harrison is a part of it, who they claim is a lynchpin to the conspiracy.
17As for the unlawful act conspiracy, again, the court must assume that the pleaded facts are true unless the pleaded facts amount to unprovable assumptive or speculative conclusions. This court does not find this to be the case, therefore, the only other consideration is whether the pleaded facts disclose a cause of action.
18In Dale v. The Toronto Real Estate Board, 2012 ONSC 512, the plaintiffs commenced an action for damages against 49 defendants, claiming that the TREB and its officers and directors, together with the Canadian Real Estate Association and its officers and directors, breached the terms of an earlier settlement agreement, violated the provisions of the Competition Act, unlawfully conspired together to injure the plaintiffs, and wrongfully interfered with the plaintiffs’ economic and contractual relations. All of the defendants, with the exception of TREB, moved to strike out the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim, without leave to further amend, on the ground that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against them. Ultimately, the court found that, assuming the facts as alleged in the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim could be established, it was not plain and obvious that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The Court stated:
53The defendants all contend that insufficient particulars of their conduct have been pleaded by the plaintiffs. I disagree. While the plaintiffs candidly admit a lack of detailed knowledge as to all of the factual nuances of the conspiracy, this is hardly surprising given the nature of the allegation. As Cumming J. aptly stated, when faced with similar circumstances in North York Branson Hospital v. Praxair Canada Inc., 1998 CanLII 14799 (ON SC), [1998] O.J. No. 5993 (S.C.J.), at para. 22:
In truth, the very nature of a claim of conspiracy is that the tort resists detailed particularization at early stages. The relevant evidence will likely be in the hands and minds of the alleged conspirators. Part of the character of a conspiracy is its secrecy and the withholding of information from alleged victims. The existence of an underlying agreement bringing the conspirators together, proof of which is a requirement borne by a plaintiff, often must be proven by indirect or circumstantial evidence. A conspiracy is more likely to be proven by evidence of overt acts and statements by the conspirators from which the prior agreement can be logically inferred. Such details would not usually be available to a plaintiff until discoveries. These considerations and the general theme of Hunt, instructing courts not to shy away from difficult litigation, also militate against holding pleadings in civil conspiracy cases to an extraordinary standard.
55In any event, in my view the plaintiffs’ pleading adequately outlines the conspiracy alleged against the defendants. The pleading describes the parties and their relationships with each other. The pleading also alleges the unlawful agreement between the parties, outlines the purposes and goals of the conspiracy, and asserts the resulting special damages (ie. substantial economic damages) that were occasioned to the plaintiffs. While the impugned pleading provides few specific details with respect to the overt acts alleged to have been done by the individual defendants in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, but rather speaks more collectively about their involvement and participation in the conspiracy, the pleading is legally sufficient, and permits the defendants to respond to the allegation. See: Normart Management Ltd. v. Westhill Redevelopment Co., at p. 104; 728654 Ontario Inc. (c.o.b. Locomotive Tavern) v. Ontario, 2005 CanLII 36159 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. 4227 (C.A.) at para. 3-5.
19In the case at bar, the proposed Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim sets out the following:
a. At all relevant times, Mr. Acheson acted as an agent, employee or representative of ECC, CHC, CCII and Centum. (para 15)
b. The representations that Mr. Acheson made amounted to unlawful conduct, breaches of the Consumer Protection Act, and / or fraudulent misrepresentations. (para 3-5 of counterclaim)
c. CCII is liable to Ms. Graham in connection with the solicitation of the CCII mortgage, directly under the Consumer Protection Act, and vicariously from the acts of employees or agents, such as Mr. Acheson. (para 19-21 of counterclaim)
d. The parties to the conspiracy include, Austin Acheson, CHC, Flex Home, ECC, Centum, Mr. Dhillon, CCII and CCC. (para 42 of counterclaim)
e. The parties acted in combination and with a common design, including:
i. Mr. Acheson procured contracts for and acted on behalf of ECC, CHC, CCII and Centum;
ii. Mr. Acheson already had knowledge of Ms. Graham’s agreements with CHC, Flex Home, and CCC when he first contacted her;
iii. The Proposed Defendants by Counterclaim operated under a client referral arrangement and shared information with a view to soliciting consumer agreements, mortgages and other security;
iv. CCC and CCII have the same principal and directing mind;
v. Danielle Harrison appears to be involved in both the CCII Mortgage and registration of the NOSI in favour of CCC. It should be noted that CCII / CCC argued that Ms. Graham has not pleaded that there was anything wrong with the advice that Ms. Harrison gave. This is simply not accurate. Ms. Graham has pleaded an undisclosed conflict of interest, in that Ms. Graham was never advised that Ms. Harrison had previously acted for CCC and / or its principal, against her interests in respect to the registration of the CCC NOSI. The fact that Ms. Harrison is not named directly as a co-conspirator is not fatal as suggested. She may well have been negligent. She may have been taken advantage of by the conspirators. Time will tell.
vi. Payment made to discharge the CCC NOSI exceeded the face value of the instrument.
vii. Mr. Acheson knew when the money would be in Ms. Graham’s account.
Ms. Graham pleads concrete and particularized conduct that the co-conspirators are said to have carried out in furtherance of the conspiracy. (para 43 of counterclaim)
f. The proposed Defendants each acted unlawfully towards Ms. Graham as detailed throughout. (para 44 of counterclaim)
g. The proposed Defendants knew, or ought to have known, that their conduct was likely to result in injury or damage to Ms. Graham, and Ms. Graham was in fact injured or damaged by their conduct as outlined. (para 45 of counterclaim)
20Clearly, Ms. Graham has pleaded the elements of the tort. CCII, and all others, will be fully aware of the case to meet from this proposed amended defence and counterclaim. Certainly, the responding parties are entitled to disagree and defend the allegations, but that is not what matters on this motion. The merits of the claim are not in issue – just that the conspiracy is pleaded properly.
21CCII refers to the fact that it was incorporated after the date of most of these events and, therefore, it could not have been part of the conspiracy alleged. In fact, they argue that if the court follows the money trail, it will see that they are merely a dupe – they have lost the money they loaned. This court is willing to accept the evidence of the incorporation, however, this does not mean that they are not part of the conspiracy or that the conspiracy claim will fail. In Ferrostaal Metals Ltd. v. Cameron, 2006 CanLII 2044 (ON SC), the court made it clear that “the conspirators need not all join at the same time, nor need they have exactly the same aim in mind”. (para 8) It remains a tenable pleading that CCII conspired with others. It should be noted that CCC, controlled by the same principal as CCII, was already involved in this narrative well before the CCII incorporation date. If CCII is engaged with these other entities in some way, they will have gained, as payments were made to these other entities by their loan, and they seek what they say is due under the terms of the mortgage, which at the time of the Statement of Claim was:
a. for principal $200,000.00;
b. default administration charge $12,500.01 under the mortgage terms (3-month interest);
c. flat service fee for initiating herein $2,000.00 default proceeding;
d. additional service fee while herein default $200.00 proceeding is in progress ($100.00 per day);
e. missed payment fee $350.00;
f. late payment charges ($5.00 per day) $10.00;
g. discharge fee + HST $847.50.
At the time of the Statement of Claim, the total due was $215,907.51. They also note that Ms. Graham is liable to pay the sums plus subsequent interest at the rate of 25 per cent per year.
22It is the view of this court that joinder of the various parties is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. Given this determination, it is unnecessary to address the issue of consolidation. This court expects that once these parties are properly added with a newly issued and served Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, the Flex Home / CHC action will be discontinued without costs.
23As for the other issues, conversion and validating service, there is no opposition to either issue. A sale action is obviously the most appropriate in the circumstances given the equity in the home. Validating service on Mr. Acheson is reasonable given his obvious awareness of the matter and engagement with counsel on his behalf. More recently, Mr. Acheson has been arrested and an address is likely available on his bail documents. Therefore, this action will be converted from a foreclosure action to a sale action. Service on Mr. Acheson is validated as of April 12, 2023.
24For all of the foregoing reasons, OTG as follows:
THIS COURT ORDERS that service of the Motion Record dated April 6, 2023, and the Motion Record dated July 5, 2024, on the proposed defendant by counterclaim, Austin Acheson, by e-mail to austinypr@live.com and by mail to 33 Edmund Crescent, London, ON, N5Z 4J1, and 716 Vaughan Mills Road, Vaughan, ON L4H 1H6, is valid and effective service, and dispenses with the need for further service of this motion on Mr. Acheson. Service on Mr. Acheson is validated as of April 12, 2023.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Judith Louise Graham, be granted leave to amend the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim in accordance with the draft Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, which will be attached to the Order as Schedule "A".
THIS COURT ORDERS that this action be converted from a foreclosure action into a sale action, with any sale to be conditional upon the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim establishing the validity of the CCII Mortgage, as defined in the Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim shall forthwith issue and deliver the Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to the Defendants by Counterclaim in accordance with the Rules.
THIS COURT ORDERS that, despite paragraph 4, after two attempts at personal service, the issued Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim may be served on Mr. Acheson by email to austinypr@live.com, and by regular mail to 716 Vaughan Mills Road, Vaughan, ON L4H 1H6, and by regular mail to such other address as reflected on his recognizance of bail and such service shall be effective on the fifth day after the Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim has been emailed and mailed.
25As for costs of this motion, this court has been advised that the parties in this matter have agreed that costs be fixed in the amount of $15,000, all inclusive, to be payable in the cause, which is ordered.
Justice V. Christie
Released: January 30, 2025