Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appeal was dismissed as moot because the property had already been sold to a third-party purchaser, making the relief sought unavailable.

• TD’s affidavit evidence was admitted for the limited purpose of establishing mootness, as it was credible and relevant to the issue.

• The Manahs’ claims of procedural unfairness and alleged violations of principles for self-represented litigants were found to be unsupported by the record.

• The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal on public importance grounds, finding the arguments raised to lack merit.

• Full indemnity costs were awarded to TD pursuant to the registered mortgage agreement, with quantum to be determined if not agreed.

• The Court invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) and prepared the resulting order.

Background and facts of the case

This case arises from ongoing litigation following the foreclosure of the respondents’ property by The Toronto Dominion Bank (TD). The background is detailed in prior decisions of the Court. The Manahs appealed an order dated May 13, 2025, which dismissed their application for an extension of time to appeal the Sale Order dated March 10, 2025. The Sale Order granted TD the right to sell the property. The Manahs filed a notice of appeal from the Sale Order on April 9, 2025, but did not apply for a stay. On April 25, 2025, title to the property was transferred to TD. On April 29, 2025, the Manahs’ appeal was struck for failure to comply with Rule 6.14. They then applied for an extension of time to appeal, which was dismissed on May 13, 2025. TD entered into a contract to sell the property to a third-party purchaser on May 30, 2025. The Manahs appealed the May 13, 2025 order on June 12, 2025. The sale to the third-party purchaser closed on July 11, 2025.

Discussion of policy terms and legal arguments

TD filed an affidavit sworn by Laurie Whiteman on July 16, 2025, detailing the events since the Sale Order. The Court admitted the affidavit as new evidence for the purpose of determining mootness, applying the Palmer criteria as clarified in Barendregt v Grebliunas and related authorities. The Manahs argued that the Court’s processes violated principles from Pintea v Johns regarding self-represented litigants, but the Court found no evidence of unfair procedures, stating that lack of success does not equate to unfairness.

Analysis of mootness and discretion to hear the appeal

The Court held that the appeal was moot because there were binding court orders confirming the Manahs’ indebtedness to TD and entitlement to foreclosure remedies, and the property had been sold to a third-party purchaser for value. The relief sought by the Manahs—undoing the Sale Order—was no longer available due to the subsequent sale, which could not be practically reversed. The Court then considered whether to exercise discretion to hear the appeal despite its mootness, but declined, finding that the issues raised by the Manahs, including technical objections to the validity of the order, were not of public importance and lacked merit.

Ruling and outcome

The Court granted TD’s application to dismiss the appeal as moot. Solicitor and own client full indemnity costs were awarded to TD pursuant to the registered mortgage agreement, with quantum to be determined by a review officer if not agreed. The Court invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) and prepared the resulting order. TD was the successful party, and no specific monetary amount was ordered beyond the entitlement to costs.### Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appeal was dismissed as moot because the property had already been sold to a third-party purchaser, making the relief sought unavailable.

• TD’s affidavit evidence was admitted for the limited purpose of establishing mootness, as it was credible and relevant to the issue.

• The Manahs’ claims of procedural unfairness and alleged violations of principles for self-represented litigants were found to be unsupported by the record.

• The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal on public importance grounds, finding the arguments raised to lack merit.

• Full indemnity costs were awarded to TD pursuant to the registered mortgage agreement, with quantum to be determined if not agreed.

• The Court invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) and prepared the resulting order.

Background and facts of the case

This case arises from ongoing litigation following the foreclosure of the respondents’ property by The Toronto Dominion Bank (TD). The background is detailed in prior decisions of the Court. The Manahs appealed an order dated May 13, 2025, which dismissed their application for an extension of time to appeal the Sale Order dated March 10, 2025. The Sale Order granted TD the right to sell the property. The Manahs filed a notice of appeal from the Sale Order on April 9, 2025, but did not apply for a stay. On April 25, 2025, title to the property was transferred to TD. On April 29, 2025, the Manahs’ appeal was struck for failure to comply with Rule 6.14. They then applied for an extension of time to appeal, which was dismissed on May 13, 2025. TD entered into a contract to sell the property to a third-party purchaser on May 30, 2025. The Manahs appealed the May 13, 2025 order on June 12, 2025. The sale to the third-party purchaser closed on July 11, 2025.

Discussion of policy terms and legal arguments

TD filed an affidavit sworn by Laurie Whiteman on July 16, 2025, detailing the events since the Sale Order. The Court admitted the affidavit as new evidence for the purpose of determining mootness, applying the Palmer criteria as clarified in Barendregt v Grebliunas and related authorities. The Manahs argued that the Court’s processes violated principles from Pintea v Johns regarding self-represented litigants, but the Court found no evidence of unfair procedures, stating that lack of success does not equate to unfairness.

Analysis of mootness and discretion to hear the appeal

The Court held that the appeal was moot because there were binding court orders confirming the Manahs’ indebtedness to TD and entitlement to foreclosure remedies, and the property had been sold to a third-party purchaser for value. The relief sought by the Manahs—undoing the Sale Order—was no longer available due to the subsequent sale, which could not be practically reversed. The Court then considered whether to exercise discretion to hear the appeal despite its mootness, but declined, finding that the issues raised by the Manahs, including technical objections to the validity of the order, were not of public importance and lacked merit.

Ruling and outcome

The Court granted TD’s application to dismiss the appeal as moot. Solicitor and own client full indemnity costs were awarded to TD pursuant to the registered mortgage agreement, with quantum to be determined by a review officer if not agreed. The Court invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c) and prepared the resulting order. TD was the successful party, and no specific monetary amount was ordered beyond the entitlement to costs.