Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The mortgagor's statutory right to a discharge statement under section 22(2) of the Mortgages Act does not require any particular form, only that the substance of required information be provided.
• A statement labeled "for information purposes only" may nonetheless satisfy statutory compliance if it contains the nature of default, amounts owing, and expenses incurred.
• The mortgagee's compliance with disclosure obligations is assessed on the substance of information provided rather than the formality of the document's characterization.
• No evidence was presented that the appellant sought refinancing and was rejected due to the form of statement provided by the respondent.
• The appeal court declined to determine whether section 22(2) applies to mortgages that have matured, as opposed to those in default due to non-payment of installments.
• Fresh evidence sought by the appellant on appeal was deemed irrelevant and inadmissible.

Background and loan default
Equitable Bank entered into a mortgage loan arrangement with Nicholas Julian Cartel and Singa Bui, with the loan secured by a first mortgage on residential property located at 50 Golfdale Road, Toronto. The mortgage agreement specified a maturity date of November 30, 2023, by which time the borrowers were required to repay the full loan amount. When this maturity date passed, the appellants failed to repay the outstanding debt, triggering the mortgagee's right to enforce the mortgage through legal proceedings.
 

Request for discharge statement and bank response
In early April 2024, approximately four and a half months after the loan matured, Cartel sought a payout or discharge statement from Equitable Bank to understand the precise amount required to satisfy the mortgage obligation. On April 9, 2024, the bank's law firm provided a written statement detailing the total debt as of that date, which included the principal amount, accrued interest, and expenses incurred by the mortgagee. However, the statement was explicitly marked "for information purposes only" and included language stating that it could not be used for discharge or payment purposes, though it was intended to assist the appellant in arranging funds to discharge the mortgage.
 

Legal proceedings and defence
On May 15, 2024, Equitable Bank commenced a claim against the appellants seeking payment of the outstanding debt and recovery of possession of the property. Notably, the appellants did not dispute that the mortgage was in default, nor did they challenge the accuracy of the principal and interest amounts claimed. Instead, Cartel's sole defence rested on the assertion that the respondent had failed to provide a discharge statement as required by section 22(2) of the Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.40. Section 22(2) provides that a mortgagor may, by written notice, require the mortgagee to furnish a statement setting out the amount of principal or interest in default, the nature of the default or covenant breach, and the amount of any necessary expenses incurred by the mortgagee.
 

Motion judge's decision and statutory compliance
The respondent bank brought a motion for summary judgment, and the motion judge examined whether the April 9, 2024 statement provided by the bank satisfied the statutory requirements of section 22(2). The motion judge determined that the bank had indeed complied with the statutory obligation. The court focused on the substance of the information provided rather than the form in which it was presented. The statement supplied all the material information required by the statute: it identified the nature of the default, specified the amounts of principal and interest owing, and disclosed the expenses incurred by the mortgagee. The fact that the statement was prepared and transmitted through the bank's law firm was found to be immaterial to the question of compliance. Additionally, the motion judge noted that the appellant presented no evidence suggesting he had attempted to secure financing and been refused based on the form of the statement provided.
 

Appeal and court of appeal decision
Cartel appealed the summary judgment order to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. On appeal, the three-judge panel—Justices Gillese, Pepall, and Zarnett—declined to make a determination as to whether section 22(2) applied to a mortgage that had matured as opposed to one in which default occurred due to missed payment installments. However, the appellate court found no basis on which to interfere with the motion judge's factual findings regarding the bank's compliance with the statutory disclosure requirement. The court emphasized that the statute required no particular form of statement and that the material content of the disclosure was the controlling factor. The appellate judges further noted that there was no evidence the appellant had attempted to obtain financing and been denied due to the form of the statement. Finally, the appellant did not provide any evidence suggesting that the monetary amount ultimately reflected in the judgment was excessive. The court also addressed the appellant's request to admit fresh evidence on appeal, finding it to be irrelevant to the issues on appeal and therefore denying the motion for leave to admit such evidence.

Outcome and costs
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's judgment in favour of Equitable Bank. The successful party, Equitable Bank, was awarded appellate costs in the amount of $9,600 on a substantial indemnity scale, inclusive of disbursements and applicable tax, payable by the appellant.