Sim Chahal

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) obtained by the plaintiff without notice against a commercial property.

The plaintiff, a shareholder in the company that originally purchased the property, alleged the property was fraudulently conveyed to another company.

The court found that while the plaintiff met the threshold test for claiming an interest in land, he failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts on the ex parte motion, specifically regarding prior litigation and settlement involving the property.

Balancing the equities, including the non-disclosure, the fact that the property was not unique, and that damages would be an adequate remedy, the court ordered the CPL discharged without security.

The Landlord brought a motion to quash the Tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board termination order.

The Board had previously found the agreed-upon rent of $1,750, which included utilities, was lawful under s. 123(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and subsequently issued a termination order for non-payment of the $300 portion of rent.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding that the grounds of appeal raised questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not questions of law as required by s. 210 of the Act.

Alternatively, even if a question of law was extractable, it was manifestly devoid of merit, consistent with prior Divisional Court decisions affirming that utilities can be included in rent under s. 123.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision enforcing a settlement agreement between the parties.

The respondent had lent $6,000,000 to the appellant via a vendor take-back mortgage that matured on May 7, 2016.

Upon default, the respondent offered a settlement for $6,162,950.45, which included principal, interest, three months' interest compensation, receivership costs, and legal fees.

The appellant paid the full amount and received a discharge of the mortgage.

Three days later, the appellant disputed the amount charged and sought relief from certain costs.

The motion judge enforced the settlement, finding the terms were clear and the appellant had accepted them without condition or protest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the enforceability of the settlement agreement and rejecting arguments regarding unconscionability and violations of the Interest Act.