CITATION: Zhang et al v. Vasile, 2026 ONSC 3572
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: CHUAN FANG ZHANG, GANG WANG & 1998743 ONTARIO INC., Plaintiffs
AND:
THE ESTATE OF GIUSEPPINA VASILE as represented by its Trustee Graziella Vasile, Defendants
BEFORE: Justice Papageorgiou
COUNSEL: Yonatan Lipetz, for the Plaintiffs
Patrick Di Monte, for the Defendant
HEARD: May 19, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Overview
1This is a motion for summary judgment brought by the Plaintiff mortgagee.
Decision
2For the reasons that follow I grant the judgment sought.
Issues
3The only issue is the amount of the payment due by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Defendant takes no issue with this matter being decided by way of summary judgment. There are no credibility issues and no facts in dispute. This matter is appropriately dealt with by way of summary judgment.
Analysis
Issue: What amount is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff pursuant to the mortgage?
The Mortgage
4The Plaintiff entered into a charge with the Defendant on March 28, 2023 in the amount of $800,000 in respect of her home at 59 Dell Park Avenue (the “Property”). This was a second mortgage. There is no dispute that the funds were advanced.
5At the time she granted the mortgage she had moved in with her daughter and was renting the Property out.
6The term of the mortgage was 13 months. The interest rate was 8.5% per annum for the first 12 months and 17 % for the 13th and any remaining month.
7Section 7 of Schedule A to the mortgage as well as the Standard Charge Terms provided that on default, the full principal and interest was due and owing and that the mortgagee was entitled to possession upon default.
The Default
8The Plaintiff defaulted in a payment obligation on June 19, 2023. This default continues.
9The mortgage matured on August 1, 2023. There was no renewal or extension
The Details of the Plaintiff’s Claim
10The Plaintiff claims certain heads of damages as well as possession of the Property.
The Defendant’s Position
11I set out here my analysis of the claims made by the Plaintiff as well as the issues raised by the Defendant.
Outstanding Principal
12The Plaintiff claims the outstanding principal in the amount of $800,000. There is no dispute that this amount is owed, and I award it.
Increased Interest
13The Plaintiff claims interest payments from June 19, 2023 at the contract rate of 17%. As noted, the mortgage provided that the interest rate was 8.5% per annum for the first 12 months and 17 % for the 13th and any remaining month.
14The Defendant argues that the increase in the rate offends the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act and that the court has the discretion to reduce the amount of interest pursuant to s. 2.
The court may,
2 Where, in respect of money lent, the court finds that, having regard to the risk and to all the circumstances, the cost of the loan is excessive and that the transaction is harsh and unconscionable, the court may,
reopen transaction and take account
(a) reopen the transaction and take an account between the creditor and the debtor;
reopen former settlements
(b) despite any statement or settlement of account or any agreement purporting to close previous dealings and create a new obligation, reopen any account already taken and relieve the debtor from payment of any sum in excess of the sum adjudged by the court to be fairly due in respect of the principal and the cost of the loan;
order repayment of excess
(c) order the creditor to repay any such excess if the same has been paid or allowed on account by the debtor;
set aside or revise contract
(d) set aside either wholly or in part or revise or alter any security given or agreement made in respect of the money lent, and, if the creditor has parted with the security, order the creditor to indemnify the debtor.
15The Defendant agrees that the original loan was valid. However, she argues that increase in interest is unconscionable because the only reason the interest rate spiked to 17 % was that it matured and there was no real reason or commercial rationale for doubling of the interest rate.
16The plaintiff says that the commercial reason for the increase in the mortgage is that this was a 13-month term and the defendant did not want the mortgage to continue afterwards.
17I disagree that this was an unconscionable transaction. There are no issues raised regarding the negotiation of the mortgage and/or what the mortgagee understood. The parties are free to contract, and they specifically agreed to the increase from 8.5% to 17%. I add that this is a second mortgage which makes it riskier than if it was a first and even the 17% rate is not excessive given that the mortgage is in second place. I see no reason to disturb their bargain.
18Therefore, I award interest at the contract rate of 17% beginning June 19, 2023 to the date of judgment, today.
Missed Payment Fee
19The plaintiff claims a missed payment fee in the amount of $2,000 based on 8 missed payments. This is expressly payable pursuant to Schedule A of the mortgage, and the defendant does not challenge it. Therefore, I award it.
Issuance of Default Proceedings
20The plaintiff claims $4,500 for the issuance of the default proceedings.
21Schedule A only entitles the plaintiff to a fee of $1,500 for the issuance of default proceedings. Therefore, I award only $1,500 for this head.
Order For and Writ of Possession
22With respect to the claim for possession, the Defendant says she does not reside there and does not have the power to evict the tenants because their lease is ongoing and they cannot be evicted under the Residential Tenancies Act. She says that to the best of her knowledge none of the tenants have been served with the Plaintiff’s materials. The Defendant asks that the court stay any enforcement until the tenants have been properly served.
23In my view, the plaintiff is entitled to an order for possession. This will not prejudice any tenants because pursuant to r. 60.10 the court may grant leave to issue a writ of possession only when it is satisfied that all persons in actual possession of any part of the land have received sufficient notice of the proceeding in which the order was obtained to have enabled them to apply to the court for relief. See also Hyungjong Kim, 2022 ONSC 2731 at para 19.
24I am not granting any writ of possession because there is no evidence before me regarding any service on said tenants. The Plaintiff indicates that it will be serving the tenants after it receives this judgment. The Plaintiff also acknowledges that it takes possession subject to the rights of any tenants pursuant to any lease.
25The Plaintiff may bring a motion in writing for a writ once all necessary service has been made on the tenants.
Three Month Interest Penalty
26The plaintiff had initially claimed 3 months interest pursuant to s. 17 of the Mortgages Act. The defendant took the position that this was not properly chargeable, and the plaintiff has withdrawn this claim
Legal Fees and Disbursement
27The Plaintiff claims legal fees and disbursements on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to the mortgage which entitles the Plaintiff to such fees. The Defendant does not challenge the entitlement of the Plaintiff to substantial indemnity costs, and the parties have agreed to costs in the amount of $6,000.
Post Judgment Interest
28The Plaintiff claims 17% post judgment interest and the Defendant agrees so I award it.
Conclusion
29Therefore, I grant the Plaintiff judgment in accordance with these reasons.
30I require the Plaintiff to provide me the calculation of the outstanding interest at the 17 % rate to today’s date. This shall be provided to the Defendant first for her review and then afterwards the parties shall either write to me and say they have agreed to the calculation, or they shall provide me submissions no longer than 3 pages on the dispute over the calculation.
Papageorgiou J.
Date: May 19, 2026