Heliotrope Investment Corporation v. 1324789 Ontario Inc.

Heliotrope Investment Corporation v. 1324789 Ontario Inc.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals: the motion judge did not err in granting summary judgment because the mortgages were valid, monies were advanced and in default, and the legal issues in the mortgage enforcement actions were distinct and appropriately summarily determined; the motion judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to stay enforcement under r.20.08 by applying the multi-factorial test, finding the counterclaims had minimal merit, noting the Beach parties' litigation conduct and delay, and identifying prejudice to the lenders that could not be remedied by just terms of a stay, so no appellate intervention was warranted.

Citation
2021 ONCA 589
Parties
Appellant / Defendant (appeal): 1324789 Ontario Inc.; Appellant / Defendant (appeal): Martha Lorraine Beach; Appellant / Defendant (appeal): Johnathan Gary Beach; Appellant / Defendant (appeal): 1073650 Ontario Inc.; Respondent / Plaintiff (appeal): Heliotrope Investment Corporation; Respondent / Plaintiff (appeal): Canadian Western Trust Company; Respondent / Defendant by Counterclaim (appeal): Magenta Capital Corporation; Respondent / Defendant by Counterclaim (appeal): Magenta Mortgage Investment Corporation
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Mortgage Enforcement and Related JV Litigation (appeal) / Appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario From Summary Judgment and Refusal to Stay Enforcement
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; summary judgments and refusal to stay enforcement affirmed; costs awarded to the Magenta parties
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Stay of Execution, Rule 20.08, Fiduciary Duty, Good Faith in Contractual Performance, Partial Summary Judgment, Set Off, Statute of Frauds, Fresh Evidence, Mortgage Enforcement
Source Language
English
Civil Mortgage Law Contract Equity Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Stay of Execution Rule 20.08 +7 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1324789 Ontario Inc.

Appellant / Defendant (appeal)

Martha Lorraine Beach

Appellant / Defendant (appeal)

Johnathan Gary Beach

Appellant / Defendant (appeal)

1073650 Ontario Inc.

Appellant / Defendant (appeal)

Heliotrope Investment Corporation

Respondent / Plaintiff (appeal)

Canadian Western Trust Company

Respondent / Plaintiff (appeal)

Magenta Capital Corporation

Respondent / Defendant by Counterclaim (appeal)

Magenta Mortgage Investment Corporation

Respondent / Defendant by Counterclaim (appeal)

Procedural Posture

Civil Mortgage Enforcement and Related JV Litigation (appeal) / Appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario From Summary Judgment and Refusal to Stay Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment in three mortgage enforcement actions
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing to stay enforcement of the summary judgments under Rule 20.08
  3. 3 Whether the Beach parties' counterclaims or related litigation required consolidation or precluded summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals: the motion judge did not err in granting summary judgment because the mortgages were valid, monies were advanced and in default, and the legal issues in the mortgage enforcement actions were distinct and appropriately summarily determined; the motion judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to stay enforcement under r.20.08 by applying the multi-factorial test, finding the counterclaims had minimal merit, noting the Beach parties' litigation conduct and delay, and identifying prejudice to the lenders that could not be remedied by just terms of a stay, so no appellate intervention was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; summary judgments and refusal to stay enforcement affirmed; costs awarded to the Magenta parties

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs to the Magenta parties
  • Costs submissions timetable: Magenta parties file written submissions (max 3 pages) within 14 days of release; Beach parties file written submissions (max 3 pages) within 10 days of date Magenta submissions are due; Magenta may file reply (max 1 page) within 5 days of date Beach submissions are due