Frenchmen's Creek Estates Inc. v. Tuckernuck Mortgage Administration Inc.

Frenchmen's Creek Estates Inc. v. Tuckernuck Mortgage Administration Inc. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2008-02-14 Neutral citation 2008 ONCA 107 Docket numbers C46994 Judges Feldman, Kathryn N.; MacFarland, Jean Louise; Watt, David Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Frenchmen's Creek Estates Inc. v. Tuckernuck Mortgage Administration Inc., 2008 ONCA 107 DATE: 20080214 DOCKET: C46994 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO FELDMAN, MacFARLAND and WATT JJ.A. BETWEEN: FRENCHMEN’S CREEK ESTATES INC., 550075 ONTARIO INC. and JOSEPH ZAWADZKI Applicants (Appellants) and TUCKERNUCK MORTGAGE ADMINISTRATION INC., TUCKERNUCK MORTGAGE ADMINISTRATION INC., IN TRUST, MATHEWS SOUTHWEST DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED, MSW DALLAS LIMITED and BRUCE BENT Respondents (Respondents in Appeal) John F. Evans, Q.C. and Andrea M. Hill for the appellants Diana M. Edmonds for the respondents Tuckernuck Mortgage Administration Inc. Edwin G. Upenieks for the respondent Mathews Southwest Developments Limited Heard and released orally: February 6, 2008 On appeal from the order of Justice Thomas R. Lofchik of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 14, 2007 ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellants’ appeal is from an order of Justice Lofchik refusing to give relief from the foreclosure judgments obtained ex-parte by the respondents. [2] On the appeal, it became clear that Justice Lofchik did not have before him the record that was placed before Justice Echlin to obtain the ex-parte orders. That record is before us on the appeal and discloses that on the first attempt to obtain the ex-parte orders from Justice Rouleau (as he then was), Justice Rouleau required disclosure of the calculation and justification of the amount of the consent judgments, the form of which was signed in blank by the appellants as part of the Minutes of Settlement. [3] The respondents then re-filed the ex-parte foreclosure motions with affidavits from Mr. Bernholtz which included an accounting that showed no monies had been paid on the Yolles first mortgages. Those affidavits failed to properly account for monies paid by the appellants which under paragraph 2 and 3 of the Minutes of Settlement had to be credited to the Yolles first mortgages. Because the material before Justice Echlin did not constitute full, fair and frank disclosure as required on an ex-parte motion, those orders should have been set aside by Justice Lofchik and we are satisfied they would have been had he been aware of this problem. [4] We therefore allow the appeal from Justice Lofchik, set aside his order and set aside the ex-parte foreclosure orders of Justice Echlin. The record before us does disclose an ongoing financial default by the appellants. The respondents are entitled to seek appropriate remedies, as advised, on proper notice to the appellants. [5] In the result, the appeal is allowed and the portion of the judgment of Justice Lofchik that refused to set aside the foreclosures is set aside. The portion of the judgment of Justice Lofchik that dismissed the application in respect of Matthews and Bent is not set aside by this court. Costs [6] Costs of the appeal to the appellants paid by the Tuckernuck respondents are in the amount of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T. on the partial indemnity scale. The Matthews respondents are entitled to their costs of the appeal from the appellants on the partial indemnity scale fixed at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T. The costs order of Justice Lofchik as between the appellants and Tuckernuck respondents is set aside. If the parties cannot agree on the amount to be paid to the appellants for such costs, they shall be fixed by the application judge. Signed: “K. Feldman J.A.” “J. MacFarland J.A.” “David Watt J.A.”