Call us: (905) 366 9700
Legal Blog:
Jun
01
2004
Nice Try
A 1988 mortgage was somewhat unusual; it provided for no payment of principal or interest until at least 1998. After that, the mortgagee could initiate an appraisal process and demand payment or the mortgagor could initiate a sale process. In 1998, the mortgagee obtained an appraisal and demanded payment; the mortgagor commenced an action alleging that the 10-year limitation period had passed and that the mortgagee had lost its right to the money.
Continue Reading >Jun
01
2004
Check It
Your writer normally avoids family law issues. The concept of a ten-foot pole comes to mind. However, the case of Bessie v. Arsenau [2004] O.J. No. 776 (S.C.J.) deals with lawyers’ negligence issues and seems to be interesting, so we are taking the plunge.
Continue Reading >Jun
01
2004
Valentine
We reported on the 2002 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Valentine Estate (see newsletter of December 2002). In that case, the court decided that the bank had a duty to inform the debtor-insureds that their insurance was being cancelled because their loan was in default. The bank moved for leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court did not grant leave and the decision, and the law stated in it, stands.
Continue Reading >Jun
01
2004
Prove It
Now and then, we get the “Prove it” defence. This is a defence in which the debtor asserts that the Visa or MasterCard account that they had used for years was debited incorrectly, say, six years ago and that the outstanding balance was comprised of improper six-year old charges. The debtor then sits back and tells us to prove the charges. The “Prove it” defence was used in Royal Bank of Canada v. Trentadue, a 2004 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision.
Continue Reading >Jun
01
2004
Here Today
It is often better to enter into an arrangement with a debtor than to continue a legal action with its attendant costs and uncertainties. A good lawyer does his or her best to resolve a dispute, hopefully on terms favourable to the client. Of course, after a deal is struck, the client expects the other party to honour the terms of the deal. Sometimes the other party reneges. Then what? In Royal Bank of Canada v. Matutschovsky, a 2004 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, we discover what can happen.
Continue Reading >