Sharoon Gill

The plaintiff, an unsecured creditor, brought an urgent motion for summary judgment to enforce a draft settlement agreement, or alternatively, an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of a property by the defendants, or an order that the sale proceeds be paid into court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the summary judgment relief was not included in the notice of motion.

Furthermore, the proceeds of the sale were entirely consumed by a first mortgage, leaving no funds for the plaintiff.

The court also held that the plaintiff failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for an injunction, as he did not establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, given his claim was merely for repayment of a loan.

The plaintiff mortgage lender brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement signed by the self-represented defendant.

The defendant argued the agreement was signed under duress and that he intended to preserve his counterclaim.

The Master found the settlement valid and binding, noting the defendant's failure to include any reservation of rights in the clear written agreement.

The Master ordered that the plaintiff could proceed with the sale of the mortgaged property, but directed that the proceeds be held in escrow until the defendant's counterclaim, which requires leave to proceed due to his status as a vexatious litigant, is resolved.

Following a judgment that reduced the amount claimed on a mortgage by $38,000, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought full indemnity costs of $22,851.46 based on standard charge terms, while the defendants sought their costs.

The court exercised its discretion to deny costs to the successful plaintiff, finding that the litigation was caused by the plaintiff's failure to properly document mortgage advances and its improper addition of third-party rent to the mortgage.

No order as to costs was made.

The plaintiff mortgage lender sought to recover amounts allegedly owing on a mortgage.

The defendants disputed six specific payments that the plaintiff had added to the mortgage principal.

Following a trial, the court found that three payments totaling $79,000 were properly added to the mortgage, while three other payments totaling $38,000 were not properly added due to lack of consent or documentation.

The court directed the parties to calculate the final amount owing based on these findings.

Following a trial concerning an alleged fundamental breach of a commercial lease, the court issued a separate ruling addressing costs.

Although the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining judgment and defeating the counterclaim, the success was characterized as mixed because the damages awarded were significantly lower than claimed and several claims were dismissed.

The court also criticized both parties and their principals for unreliable evidence and a poorly drafted lease that unnecessarily complicated the trial.

However, the plaintiff had delivered a Rule 49 offer to settle that was bettered by the trial result.

Considering the offer and the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs payable by one defendant to the plaintiff at $50,000 all inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to enforce an alleged settlement arising from negotiations concerning a construction lien and mortgage priority dispute.

The court applied the two‑step analysis under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, first determining whether the parties had reached an agreement and then whether any such agreement should be enforced.

The court held that there was no meeting of the minds because the correspondence relied upon constituted, at most, a counteroffer and contained ambiguous and inconsistent terms.

Although the court found that the respondent’s alleged solicitor had ostensible authority to negotiate and potentially bind the respondent, the absence of agreement on essential terms was fatal.

The motion to enforce the alleged settlement was dismissed.

Following a summary judgment decision in favour of the plaintiffs for unpaid real estate commission after the defendants sold their home shortly after cancelling a listing agreement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $19,570.70, arguing they were entirely successful on the principal claim.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs were only partially successful because punitive damages were not awarded and raised an unsupported argument regarding commission entitlement.

The court rejected substantial indemnity costs, finding no bad faith or sanctionable conduct by the defendants and emphasizing proportionality.

Partial indemnity costs of $12,500 inclusive of taxes and disbursements were awarded to the plaintiffs.

A real estate brokerage and agent sought summary judgment for unpaid commission arising from a listing agreement containing a 60‑day holdover clause.

The homeowners cancelled the listing and shortly thereafter re‑listed with another agent at a substantially lower commission, later selling the property to purchasers who had previously made an offer during the original listing period.

The court assessed credibility on the summary judgment record and found the homeowners’ explanations for cancelling and re‑listing inconsistent and lacking credibility.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted judgment for the commission amount plus interest.

The request for punitive damages based on alleged civil conspiracy with the purchasers was rejected for lack of evidence of an independent actionable wrong.

A co-mortgagor brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by a lender on a mortgage securing a $50,000 loan used by the co-defendant spouse for business purposes.

The moving party argued she misunderstood the deadline to file a defence and moved promptly after retaining counsel.

The court applied the principles governing the setting aside of default judgments, including whether the default was explained, whether the motion was brought promptly, and whether there was an arguable defence.

Although two proposed defences lacked merit, the court found that evidence suggesting the debt may have been paid in the co-defendant’s bankruptcy raised an arguable defence.

In the interests of justice and absent procedural prejudice to the lender, the default judgment was set aside and the defendant was permitted to file a defence.