Sumit Judge

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage against the defendants.

The court considered whether the plaintiff could charge compound interest on default and whether an $87,000 payment made by one of the defendants should be allocated to the mortgage debt or to separate personal loans.

The court held that the compound interest provision violated section 8 of the Interest Act and was void.

Using its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1), the court found that the $87,000 payment was allocated to the personal loans, not the mortgage.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $374,060.97 plus simple interest, along with an order for possession of the property.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation in an action for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale of a residential property.

The transaction failed to close after the property remained occupied by a tenant and other individuals, and the plaintiff subsequently asked for her deposit back.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff lost any claim to an interest in the land when she chose to terminate the agreement, and that her allegations of misrepresentation would only give rise to a claim for damages.