Legal Blog:

Mortgage Enforcement

TD Bank v. Andrade 2025 Ont SCJ

Mortgagee moved for possession of mortgaged property. The occupant claimed that he was an owner; the titled owner claimed that the occupant was a squatter with no title. The judge ignored the dispute because the occupant had not paid the mortgage payments or condo fees and, even if he were a beneficial owner, he was obliged to do so. Further, the fact that the occupant claimed, without commencing an action, that the mortgagee knowingly assisted the titled owner was not a reason to disallow the mortgagee to realise on its security.

CPL

N. and G. Lazos Building Contractors O.E. v. Kapsalis‑Fragaki 2025 Ont SCJ (AJ)

Action to enforce a Greek judgment. During the Greece proceedings, the debtor entered into an alter ego trust in which title to Ontario land was transferred to the trust. The creditor alleged that this transfer was a fraudulent conveyance; the debtor claimed that the trust was proper and done before the Greek judgment. The associate judge held that there were issues as to the timing of the trust and allowed the motion for a CPL.

Wilfully Blind

Chen v. Huang 2024 Ont SCJ affirmed 2025 Ont CA

Majority shareholders claimed that corporation’s sole director and officer, but minority shareholder, fraudulently placed two arm’s length mortgages for $7.7 million and that the mortgagees were wilfully blind to the misconduct and lack of authority. The motion judge held that credit risk was not a badge of fraud for mortgagees who loaned money based on equity. Because the director had ostensible and actual authority, the mortgages were valid and enforceable. The Court of Appeal agreed.

Flotsam and Jetsam

It is a new year. We thought it appropriate to give some snappy summaries of 2024 runner-up cases that caught our attention but were not the subject of our 2025 newsletters.

Mascia v. Tristar

This is a 2024 decision of the Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Dispute

Homeowners retained a contractor to repair their cottage that had severe flood damage. The owners gave a work commencement order to the contractor before the parties ever agreed on a price. Although the contractor gave estimates after the date of the work order, they were just that, estimates. After the contractor had completed much of the remediation work, the owners became upset with the rising cost of the project and fired the contractor. The contractor sued for the value of the work it had completed, including windows that it had paid for and stored and for which the owners had ultimately refused delivery to the project site.