Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario rejette l’appel de M. Bitchoka et confirme un jugement sommaire accordant la possession à Equitable Bank et 659 029,88 $.
Louise Miner’s motion for an extension of time to “revest and revoke” in an appeal from a mortgage-enforcement matter was dismissed as incomprehensible and irrelevant. Costs were awarded to Home Trust.
The Ontario Court of Appeal stayed enforcement of a mortgage enforcement judgment until March 30, 2026, despite finding the appeal had little merit.
In a foreclosure petition, the court held claims against two respondents were statute barred and dismissed them with costs, while granting an order nisi against the registered owner.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied a motion to extend time to appeal and a stay in a mortgage enforcement matter, awarding costs to MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to review a denied stay of mortgage enforcement as moot, and awarded the respondent $3,000 costs.
Motion for stay dismissed because the appeal raised weak grounds, Jonny’s Antiques failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the lender who had a long outstanding mortgage and a committed purchaser; however, 264’s acceleration of the closing without notice justified denial of costs.
Source excerpt
The court held Alleghe did not breach the duty of good faith by electing to exercise its contractual mortgage rights—including paying out the first mortgage and marketing the property—rather than cancelling building permits under the Direction; the motion judge properly determined the issue on the record and appellants failed to show palpable and overriding error.
Source excerpt
The court approved a receivership sale of an 87-unit apartment building in Victoria after finding the marketing and PD-62 bidding process were sufficient and fair.
Where a costs order of this court is outstanding and payable under Rule 57.03(1) (a silent order is payable within 30 days), a single judge may not dismiss the appeal but may order the responding parties to comply with the outstanding costs orders by a fixed deadline prior to the hearing; failure to comply permits moving parties to seek dismissal by a panel. The court therefore ordered payment by August 28, 2024 and set the appeal for hearing on September 24, 2024.
Source excerpt
Explore more
