CITATION: Lee v. Hong, 2026 ONSC 4272
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Nanki Lee
Plaintiff
– and –
Young Suk Hong and Jong Jin Hong
Defendants
Yan David Payne and Jelani K. Asante, for the Plaintiff
No one appearing
HEARD: In Writing
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
Mathen J.
OVERVIEW
1The Plaintiff seeks default judgment for failure to pay under a registered mortgage.
2The Defendants did not defend the proceeding and were noted in default on January 15, 2026.
3On March 20, 2026, I ordered the Plaintiff to serve the motion for default judgment and a copy of their endorsement allowing the Defendants an opportunity to notify the Plaintiff by April 27, 2026, that he would respond, failing which the motion would proceed in writing.
4The Plaintiff served the endorsement and motion record. The Defendants did not respond.
5I am satisfied that the Defendants do not intend to defend this motion.
DECISION
6For the reasons that follow I am granting the judgment as sought which includes:
a. $678,863.71 in damages
b. Pre and post-judgment interest calculated at the rate of 3.7%
c. An order for vacant possession
d. Costs in the amount of $6,000
ISSUES
7The main issues are:
a. Do the materials provide a basis for a finding of liability?
b. If so, what are the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Do the materials provide a basis for a finding of liability?
Consequences of noting in default
8Pursuant 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.
9However, under 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.
10In 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
11The test on a motion for default judgement 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 judgement on the claim?
c. If they do not, has the plaintiff adduced admissible evidence which, when combined with the deemed admissions, entitle it to judgement on the pleaded claim?
Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin, 2012 ONSC 2062 at para. 14.
12I am satisfied that the plaintiff has established liability based upon the following deemed admissions in the Statement of Claim together with the Affidavit of Nanki Lee sworn February 6, 2026:
The Plaintiff, Nanki Lee (“Plaintiff”), is an individual residing in the City of North York, in the Province of Ontario.
The Defendant, Jong Jin Hong (“Jong”), is an individual residing in the City of Toronto, and the joint registered owner of the property municipally described as TH4 - 15 Viking Lane, Toronto, Ontario M9B 0A4.
The Defendant, Young Suk Hong (“Young”), is an individual residing in the City of Toronto and the joint registered owner of the Property.
On December 19, 2016, the Defendants obtained a mortgage on the Property from Counton Limited for a period of three years. The Defendants securing the sum of $530,000.00 and interest on that sum of 3.7% per year calculated monthly, not in advance (the “Mortgage”).
Default on the mortgage occurred on or about January 19, 2017, when the first interest payment was missed.
On May 30, 2017, Counton Limited transferred its interest in the Mortgage to the Plaintiff and her husband, who became mortgagees jointly with right of survivorship. The Plaintiff’s husband passed away on December 11, 2018, and Nanki Lee became the sole mortgagee.
Subsequently, the Defendants made inconsistent payments, with the last payment received on January 8, 2024.
On June 19, 2025, the Defendants were served with the Notice of Sale via registered mail.
Issue 2: What are the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled?
13The Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the loss of bargain which means they are entitled to be placed in the same position they would have been in if the breaches had not occurred, or in other words as though the contract had been performed without any breaches.
14Pursuant to r. 60.10 “the court may grant 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 Kim (Re), 2022 ONSC 2731 at para 19.
15I am satisfied that the Defendants owed $678,863 as of February 6, 2026, consisting of:
a. Outstanding principal balance of $530,000
b. Accrued interest of $111,740.92
c. Additional interest in the amount of $6,249.79
d. Costs incurred in enforcing the mortgage of $30,873
COSTS
16The plaintiff requests costs in the amount of $6,000, inclusive of disbursements. I find that amount reasonable and within the reasonable contemplation of the defendant.
INTEREST
17The plaintiff claims prejudgment interest in accordance with the contractual rate of 3.7%. Generally, courts should give effect to interest rates contained in an agreement unless the terms are vague, unclear or infringe a statutory provision such as the Interest Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1-15: Capital One Bank v. Matovska; Capital One Bank v.Blackwell; Capital One Bank v. Semple, 2007 CanLII 37015, at para. 13 and Gyimah v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2013 ONCA 252, at para. 10. Absent exceptional circumstances, it is appropriate and fair to use a contractual interest rate to which the parties have agreed: Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co., 2002 SCC 43, at paras.49-50, Professional Court Reporters Inc. v. Pistachio Financier Corp., 2022 ONCA 669.
18The plaintiff’s damages include prejudgment interest to February 6, 2026. The plaintiff calculates the per diem rate of interest as $53.73. I accept this calculation.
19The defendants therefore owe additional prejudgment interest from February 7, 2026, to the date of judgment at a rate of $53.73 per day.
20The post judgment interest rate is 3.7%.
ORDER
21In conclusion, I make the following order:
a. The motion is granted:
i. The Plaintiff is granted default judgment against Defendants Young Suk Hong and Jong Jin Hong, jointly and severally, in the amount of $678,863.71 in damages;
ii. The Plaintiff is granted pre and post judgment interest at the rate of 3.7% per annum;
iii. The Plaintiff is granted vacant possession of the property as described in the Statement of Claim, municipally known as TH4-15 Viking Lane, Toronto, Ontario and legally described as follows: UNIT 4, LEVEL A, TORONTO STANDARD CONDOMINIUM PLAN NO. 2238 AND ITS APPURTENANT INTEREST; SUBJECT TO AND TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS AS SET OUT IN SCHEDULE A AS IN AT3015511; CITY OF TORONTO. PIN: 76238-0362 (LT);
iv. Defendants shall pay costs of this motion fixed at $6,000.00.
b. Within 14 days, the Plaintiff may forward for my signature an Order for my signature reflecting these provisions, that includes the amount owed in prejudgment interest from February 7, 2026, to the date of judgment.
Mathen, J.
Released: July 22, 2026
CITATION: Lee v. Hong, 2026 ONSC 4272
COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00755624-0000
DATE: 20260722
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Nanki Lee
Plaintiff
– and –
Young Suk Hong and Jong Jin Hong
Defendants
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mathen J.
Released: July 22, 2026