Stephen R. Cameron

The applicants sought to discharge a collateral mortgage without paying a $4.25 million 'Participation Amount' owed to the respondents.

The applicants argued the Participation Amount was invalid on several grounds, including that it was a clog on the equity of redemption, offended section 8 of the Interest Act, constituted a criminal rate of interest under section 347 of the Criminal Code, violated the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, and was an unenforceable penalty.

The court rejected all these arguments, finding the Participation Amount was a valid collateral advantage agreed to by sophisticated commercial parties in exchange for forbearance.

The court ordered the funds held in court to be paid to the respondents.

The mortgagors brought a motion for leave to file an expert report regarding the calculation of a criminal rate of interest under s. 347 of the Criminal Code, after having conducted cross-examinations.

The mortgagees opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking an order that the mortgagors pay an additional sum into court to secure the increased interest and costs resulting from the delay.

The court granted the mortgagors leave to file the expert report, but ordered them to pay an additional $106,500 into court to mitigate the prejudice to the mortgagees caused by the delay and the need to respond to the late-filed report.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application for a declaration that it had the exclusive right to terminate a real estate agreement.

The agreement contained a clause allowing either party to terminate if severance approval was not obtained by a specified date.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the final executed offer contained a mutual termination clause, rejecting the appellant's argument that uninitialed handwritten portions should be disregarded.

The court also rejected the appellant's promissory estoppel argument, finding the relationship was governed by contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal by the condominium corporation that dismissed the respondent's Small Claims Court action regarding a special assessment, the court determined the costs of the proceedings.

The appellant sought over $52,000 in costs on a claim worth $5,350.29.

The court rejected the application of the condominium declaration for substantial indemnity costs because the respondent had sold her unit before suing.

The court also held that Rule 49.10 does not apply to offers made pending an appeal.

Emphasizing proportionality, the court limited the Small Claims Court costs to the statutory 15% maximum plus disbursements, and fixed the appeal costs at $3,000 plus disbursements, for a total award of $7,452.73.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding damages to a former unit owner.

The owner had paid a special assessment for major repairs before selling her unit.

When the repair costs came in lower than expected, the board transferred the surplus to the reserve fund rather than issuing refunds.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the board acted reasonably and in accordance with the Condominium Act, 1998, which requires common surpluses to be applied to future expenses or paid into the reserve fund.

The parties, equal shareholders in a land development company, reached a deadlock.

The trial judge ordered the company wound up and gave the appellant the first right to buy the respondent's shares at fair market value.

After the parties failed to agree on a price, the trial judge fixed the share value and ordered a descending auction if the rights of refusal were not exercised.

The Divisional Court set aside this order and directed a public auction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by abandoning the valuation mechanism without notice, and the Divisional Court erred by removing the appellant's right of first refusal.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge.