Legal Blog:

Mississauga Board of Trade names Speigel Nichols Fox LLP Finalist for MBOT Awards!

The Mississauga Board of Trade has named Speigel Nichols Fox LLP a top three finalist for the Employer of the Year Award! We look forward to the event, click here to purchase tickets.

This award is given to an employer that fosters a positive workplace culture and promotes work-life balance, among other things.

Summary Judgment

MacDonald v Chicago Title Insurance 2014 SCJ

Even if a responding party opposing a summary judgment motion brings no motion for relief, if the moving party’s motion is unsuccessful, the court may still grant judgment even if the responding party does not want judgment in its favour – an adverse party cannot ignore the benefits to society of a more expeditious and less expensive final determination of the issues

Follow

Sometimes court decisions are interesting, not so much for their facts or the application of law, but rather for their effect on decision-making and court processes. One such decision is found in RSG Mechanical v. 1398796 Ontario Inc., a 2015 decision of the Ontario Divisional Court.

Dispute

The facts were convoluted, but we will (over?) simplify them. A developer had a great idea: buy land and, on it, build townhouses and a high rise condominium. He granted four mortgages to finance the project. Unfortunately, after building and selling 49 of 61 townhouses, the developer ran out of money. Since the 12 remaining townhouses were in various stages of completion and sale, the 3^rd and 4^th mortgagees, in a complicated set of transactions over time, bought out the 1^st and 2^nd mortgages and ultimately the 4^th mortgage itself was paid.

The 3^rd mortgagee then posted $979,000 in security to vacate the lien claims on the project, allowing for the completion of the remaining townhouses and for the sale of the townhouses and the high rise condominium land.

The sale monies were sufficient to repay a significant portion the liabilities associated with the development, but were insufficient to pay all of the lien claimants, the monies due under the mortgages, and the cost to complete and sell the townhouses.

The lien claimants took the position that, since the mortgagee posted security to discharge their liens, the mortgagee was liable not only for the holdback money, but for all money posted to discharge the liens. There were other issues, but, due to space limitations, we will not deal with them.