Krates Keswick Inc. v. Crate

Krates Keswick Inc. v. Crate

The Court affirmed the motion judge's judgments and possession order but concluded that, because subsequent Superior Court decisions affecting the value and vesting of the secured properties were not before the motion judge, it was just to stay enforcement of the portions of the judgment secured by those properties (paras.1 and 3) until determination of any reduction in amounts payable; enforcement of the unsecured Loan 2 (para.2) remains unstayed.

Citation
2017 ONCA 915
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Krates Keswick Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Steven Crate; Defendant/appellant: Gregory Crate; Defendant/appellant: Lynn Joanne Marko
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (receivership/enforcement) / Appeal From Order of Superior Court (motion Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part: judgment and possession orders upheld; stay granted of enforcement as to secured Loans 1 and 3 pending determination of credits; no stay for unsecured Loan 2; no costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
Judgment Enforcement, Stay of Execution, Guarantees, Mortgages, Resulting Trust, Receivership Proceedings, Possession of Lands
Source Language
English
Civil Receivership Property Enforcement Contract/guarantee Judgment Enforcement Stay of Execution Guarantees +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krates Keswick Inc.

Plaintiff/respondent

Steven Crate

Defendant/appellant

Gregory Crate

Defendant/appellant

Lynn Joanne Marko

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil (receivership/enforcement) / Appeal From Order of Superior Court (motion Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in awarding judgment on Loans 1, 2 and 3
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge erred in awarding possession of the Marko Lands
  3. 3 Whether enforcement of the judgment should be stayed pending determination of credits arising from the value/vesting of secured properties

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed the motion judge's judgments and possession order but concluded that, because subsequent Superior Court decisions affecting the value and vesting of the secured properties were not before the motion judge, it was just to stay enforcement of the portions of the judgment secured by those properties (paras.1 and 3) until determination of any reduction in amounts payable; enforcement of the unsecured Loan 2 (para.2) remains unstayed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part: judgment and possession orders upheld; stay granted of enforcement as to secured Loans 1 and 3 pending determination of credits; no stay for unsecured Loan 2; no costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • Stay enforcement of paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Judgment until determination of any reduction in the amounts payable by reason of the value or vesting of the Marko Lands and 210 Wynhurst.
  • No stay of enforcement of paragraph 2 of the Judgment (Loan 2).