Stephen Turk

The applicants sought to determine their entitlement to the proceeds of sale of a property, claiming priority based on a third mortgage and an equitable fourth mortgage.

The execution creditors challenged the interest rate on the third mortgage and the validity of the equitable fourth mortgage.

The court held that the interest rate on the third mortgage was governed by the underlying promissory note, which clearly set out an annual rate of 20% after maturity, complying with the Interest Act.

However, the court declined to grant an equitable fourth mortgage, finding that the terms were uncertain and the debtor had no intention of registering a mortgage when the right crystallized.

The applicants sought an order for the partition and sale of a residential property co-owned with the respondent.

Due to the parties' inability to cooperate, the applicants requested the appointment of a third-party sales officer.

The court granted the application, appointing RSM to conduct the sale process to avoid further disputes and legal costs.

Costs of $15,833 were ordered to be paid to the applicants from the proceeds of the sale, effectively spreading the cost among all four owners.

The plaintiffs brought motions to compel the examination of a defendant on behalf of a corporate defendant and for further and better affidavits of documents from several defendants.

The parties agreed to dismiss the examination motion and portions of the production motion without prejudice.

The court ordered one defendant to produce certain financial documents relevant to personal enrichment and an itemized Schedule B list, but dismissed the remaining requests for further documents and better email descriptors, finding insufficient evidence of missing documents and that the current descriptors were proportionate.

The plaintiff, a shell corporation, brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a gas station it had agreed to purchase.

The transaction failed to close on the extended closing date, and the vendor subsequently sold the property to a third party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue that the agreement of purchase and sale remained in effect.

Furthermore, the court held that the property was not unique, damages would be an adequate remedy, and the plaintiff's status as a shell corporation raised concerns about its ability to pay damages if unsuccessful at trial.

The applicants sought a determination of the shareholders of 7538715 Canada Ltd. and whether the respondent Mohammad Petgar was an authorized director.

The applicants claimed they owned 100% of the shares and provided all the investment money.

The respondent claimed he and his estranged wife, the primary applicant, each owned 50% of the shares.

The court reviewed documentary evidence, including a shareholders agreement and bank guarantees, and found that the respondent and his estranged wife were each 50% shareholders.

The court also found that the respondent was an authorized director of the company.