Steven Gadbois

The defendant brought a motion to stay the enforcement of foreclosure orders respecting several properties pending his appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The defendant argued he would be rendered homeless and destitute without the stay.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the defendant failed to establish irreparable harm, as his harm was quantifiable in monetary terms and he owned another valuable property.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs, who risked liability and further deterioration of the properties.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside default foreclosure judgments obtained by the plaintiffs in 2014 regarding three properties.

The defendant argued he had an oral agreement with the plaintiffs not to proceed with the actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant's evidence of an oral agreement lacked credibility, the motion was not brought with reasonable promptness, and the defendant lacked a plausible excuse for the delay or an arguable defence on the merits.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action arising from a failed agreement of purchase and sale for contaminated industrial property and sought entitlement to retain a $50,000 deposit.

The purchaser had waived an environmental condition in the agreement after receiving information regarding contamination and a Ministry of the Environment prohibition order registered on title.

The court held that the purchaser knowingly accepted the environmental risks when it waived the condition and took an assignment of the agreement, and was not entitled to refuse closing on the basis that the order had not been removed from title.

The court concluded that no genuine issue requiring a trial existed under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the vendor was entitled to retain the deposit.

Summary judgment dismissing the action was granted.