Pacific Playground v Endeavour Developments

Pacific Playground v Endeavour Developments

The Master allowed the amended defence in part because the court could not find that the issue was finally decided by the prior order (it had been lost from sight), the interest-rate issue is a real issue that can be conveniently and efficiently tried with the estoppel issue without delaying trial, and the amendment was necessary to determine all matters between the parties; the amendment was limited where vague or embarrassing and costs were addressed as set out.

Citation
2001 BCSC 429
Parties
Petitioner: Pacific Playground Holdings Ltd.; Respondent: Endeavour Developments Ltd.; Respondent: Eron Mortgage Corporation; Respondent: 493461 B.C. Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Foreclosure (petition) / Pre Trial (application to Amend Pleadings; Issue Designated for Trial)
Outcome
Amendment allowed in part
Legal Topics
Foreclosure, Estoppel, Amendment of Pleadings, Interest Act S.8, Penalty/default Interest, Res Judicata
Source Language
English
Mortgage Law Property Law Contract Law Procedural Law Statutory Interest Law Equity (estoppel) Foreclosure Estoppel +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pacific Playground Holdings Ltd.

Petitioner

Endeavour Developments Ltd.

Respondent

Eron Mortgage Corporation

Respondent

493461 B.C. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Foreclosure (petition) / Pre Trial (application to Amend Pleadings; Issue Designated for Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to file an amended statement of defence raising a challenge under s.8 of the Interest Act
  2. 2 Whether the interest-rate issue is barred by res judicata because it was considered by Madam Justice Saunders and not included in her order
  3. 3 Whether the higher default interest rate (24%) is enforceable as having a legitimate commercial purpose

Ratio Decidendi

The Master allowed the amended defence in part because the court could not find that the issue was finally decided by the prior order (it had been lost from sight), the interest-rate issue is a real issue that can be conveniently and efficiently tried with the estoppel issue without delaying trial, and the amendment was necessary to determine all matters between the parties; the amendment was limited where vague or embarrassing and costs were addressed as set out.

Court Disposition

Amendment allowed in part

Orders

  • Leave granted to amend statement of defence in part: paragraph 7 of proposed amendment allowed; paragraph 8 refused; paragraph 9 allowed only in the following form: 'That the penalty provision in the mortgage for the interest rate increase was void and unenforceable, as a violation of s.8 of the Interest Act, R.S.C....
  • No costs awarded to Endeavour for this application; whether Pacific Playground should have costs reserved to the trial judge