Soloman Lam

Following the plaintiff's successful motion for summary judgment and successful resistance of the defendants' cross-motion, the plaintiff sought costs of $37,011.28 based on an offer to settle.

The defendants argued the amount was excessive and disproportionate to the $178,000 at issue.

The court found the requested amount too high and fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, citing the overriding principle of proportionality.

The plaintiff mortgagor defaulted on a matured mortgage.

The defendant mortgagees issued a Notice of Sale claiming the principal, regular interest, and an additional three months' interest pursuant to section 17 of the Mortgages Act.

The plaintiff paid the amount under protest to discharge the mortgage and brought an action to recover the three months' interest.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that once a mortgagee issues a Notice of Sale to realize on its security after maturity, it cannot unilaterally impose a three-month interest penalty under section 17.

The plaintiff was granted summary judgment for the recovery of the disputed interest.

The Vendor successfully moved for summary judgment, terminating an agreement of purchase and sale due to the Purchasers' failure to pay a deposit by the stipulated deadline.

The court found that a subsequent alleged verbal agreement to revive or amend the contract was invalid, citing "time is of the essence" and "all amendments in writing" clauses within the agreement, as well as the Statute of Frauds.

Relief from forfeiture of the $1,000,000 deposit was denied, as the deposit was not deemed disproportionate to the purchase price and no unconscionability was established.

The Purchasers' cross-motion for specific performance and motion for a certificate of pending litigation were dismissed.

The applicant sought injunctive relief and damages regarding a right-of-way over the respondents' land, alleging interference with its use and enjoyment, and requesting contribution to maintenance and snow clearing.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the right-of-way was limited to vehicular access to the applicant's garage, as determined by the instrument creating it and historical circumstances.

The respondents' fence was found not to substantially interfere with this purpose.

The court also determined that the destruction of stone pillars on the right-of-way was not unlawful given the land's Land Titles Absolute status, which extinguished possessory claims.

Furthermore, the respondents were not obligated to contribute to snow removal as they did not use the right-of-way in winter.

The claim for damages was dismissed as it could not be advanced by application.