Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants were noted in default for failing to respond to a mortgage enforcement claim.

• The court had to determine whether the plaintiff was legally entitled to a default judgment.

• Liability was established through deemed admissions under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

• Supporting affidavit evidence confirmed mortgage terms, default, and outstanding debt.

• The plaintiff was found entitled to possession of the property due to continued non-payment.

• No probate had occurred for the deceased’s estate, complicating estate administration and enforcement.

Facts and procedural background

The Royal Bank of Canada (the plaintiff) initiated a civil proceeding against the Estate of Morrison Augustin and Bridget Daniel to enforce a mortgage following default. Morrison Augustin had entered into a mortgage agreement with the bank under its Homeline Plan, securing the loan with a charge registered on a property in Scarborough, Ontario. Augustin was the sole registered owner of the property and later passed away, transferring interest in the property to his estate.

The plaintiff claimed that the mortgage went into default on January 30, 2024, and remained in default despite notices. No Certificate of Appointment as Estate Trustee had been granted, though counsel for Bridget Daniel, the deceased’s spouse and sole beneficiary, indicated she intended to apply for one. The plaintiff served all relevant documents on both the estate and Ms. Daniel, but neither filed a defence. As a result, both were noted in default. A motion for default judgment was brought by the bank after meeting procedural requirements ordered by Justice Pollak.

Legal issues and court’s reasoning

Justice Merritt outlined the two central issues: whether the plaintiff had shown a sufficient basis for liability and whether it was entitled to an order for possession of the mortgaged property. Under Rule 19.02 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, unresponsive defendants are deemed to admit the facts in the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim. However, Rule 19.06 requires that these facts must still entitle the plaintiff to judgment in law. The court relied on the test from Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin, which requires assessing both deemed admissions and supporting evidence to determine entitlement to judgment.

The plaintiff submitted affidavit evidence from a bank representative confirming the mortgage terms, registration details, default in payment, and continued indebtedness. The evidence also showed that no probate of the estate had occurred and that Bridget Daniel had not taken formal steps to administer the estate.

Outcome and judgment

The court held that the deemed admissions, combined with the affidavit evidence, established the plaintiff’s legal entitlement to default judgment. Justice Merritt concluded that once default occurred under the terms of the registered mortgage, the bank was legally entitled to possession of the property. Accordingly, an order for possession was granted in favour of the Royal Bank of Canada. The court also granted the bank's request for costs, to be assessed.