Sharon E. Lavine

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment for possession of two residential properties following a default on a $1,194,000 loan.

One of the defendants, who had been noted in default, brought a cross-motion to set aside the noting in default, arguing his spouse did not consent to the mortgage on their matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the default, finding no arguable defence as the evidence showed the spouse had consented.

The court granted summary judgment for possession of both properties, rejecting the corporate defendant's arguments of lack of authority and undue influence, and applying the indoor management rule.

The moving party was previously successful on a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered on title to a residential property.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs of $37,279, while the responding party suggested costs should not exceed $5,000.

The court found the factual issues complex but noted excess time and duplication in preparation.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs sought leave to issue and register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a residential property, claiming a 50% ownership interest based on an alleged oral agreement and part performance.

The defendant denied a firm agreement, asserting a temporary arrangement and having returned the plaintiffs' payments with interest.

The court applied the two-part test for CPLs, considering whether there was a reasonable claim to an interest in land and the equities.

Despite finding a triable issue regarding the oral agreement, the court concluded that the equitable factors did not favor granting the CPL, particularly as damages were calculable and deemed an adequate remedy.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a cottage property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, arguing the agreement was void due to unfulfilled conditions regarding severance under the Planning Act and uncertainty over rights of way.

The court found the agreement valid and binding, noting the defendants could not rely on their own failure to obtain the necessary severances to terminate the contract.

Finding the property uniquely suited to the plaintiffs' needs, the court granted summary judgment and ordered specific performance.

The City of Oshawa sought a declaration that MEARIE had a duty to defend it in a slip-and-fall action arising from an uneven sidewalk where Oshawa PUC had previously performed work.

The City was an additional insured on Oshawa PUC's policy.

The court found that MEARIE had a duty to defend because there was a mere possibility that the claim fell within coverage, as the liability could arise from Oshawa PUC's operations.

However, the court held that the City must bear its share of defence costs for uncovered claims and denied the City's request to appoint its own counsel, finding that MEARIE's proposed safeguards adequately addressed any conflict of interest.