Decisions of the Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: B2B Bank v. Hails, 2018 ONCA 380

DATE: 20180418

DOCKET: C64489

Benotto, Brown and Miller JJ.A.

BETWEEN

B2B Bank

Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Darrell George Hails

Defendant (Appellant)

Darrell George Hails, acting in person

Cristina Internicola, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: April 17, 2018

On appeal from the order of Justice Andrew J. Goodman of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 22, 2017.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]          The appellant defaulted on a residential mortgage granted in favour of the respondent. The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment, including an order for possession, which was granted unopposed. As the mortgage was to mature five weeks subsequent, the motion judge provided for the order to be held in abeyance for five weeks, to November 1, 2017, to allow the appellant an opportunity to make financial arrangements and redeem the mortgage.

[2]          The appellant subsequently appealed to this court. He brought an unsuccessful motion to stay the order for possession pending appeal. He has since been evicted and the house has been sold.

[3]          The appellant now seeks leave to admit fresh evidence, made up of a disparate collection of materials that were available at the time of the hearing of the summary judgment motion, and in any event have no relevance to the action. The motion to admit fresh evidence is dismissed.

[4]          The appellant argues that the motion judge erred by denying him an opportunity to amend his statement of defence and file a counterclaim. Leave was not granted to amend the statement of defence or file a counterclaim.

[5]          The appellant has not been able to articulate an arguable defence or counterclaim.

[6]          The appeal is dismissed. Costs are awarded to the respondent in the amount of $8,500, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“David Brown J.A.”

“B.W. Miller J.A.”

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.