Shahzad F. Siddiqui

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagors following a default on a mortgage.

The defendants admitted the default but disputed the plaintiff's calculation of the amount owing, pointing to a double-counted fee.

The court granted summary judgment on the issue of default, finding no genuine issue for trial, but referred the determination of the exact amount owing to a Master pursuant to Rule 20.04(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against two properties, claiming a beneficial interest through a resulting trust.

The properties had been registered in the names of her family members.

The court found that the claim regarding one property was statute-barred by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

For the other property, although there was a triable issue, the court declined to grant the equitable remedy of a CPL because the plaintiff admitted she originally registered the properties in her family members' names to shield them from her husband's equalization claims, thereby violating the clean hands doctrine.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from an aborted residential real estate transaction.

The defendant purchaser argued she was entitled to revoke her offer before it was accepted and that the irrevocability clause in the standard form agreement was unconscionable.

The court held that the irrevocability clause was binding as it was supported by distinct consideration (the developer taking the property off the market).

Applying the Supreme Court's framework in Uber v. Heller, the court found that while there was unequal bargaining power, the irrevocability clause was not an improvident bargain.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $179,599.94.