Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Summary judgment under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was sought to enforce a mortgage by way of power of sale, together with possession and a writ of possession.
• The defendant filed a Statement of Defence but served no responding evidence, leaving the plaintiff's record uncontradicted.
• Central to the analysis was whether mere allegations in a pleading could establish a genuine issue requiring a trial; the court held they could not.
• Uncontradicted affidavit evidence, including that of Danny Sougaris, established the validity of the mortgage, the plaintiff's status as mortgagee by assignment, the default, and the amount owing.
• Compliance with contractual and statutory enforcement prerequisites, including service of a Notice of Sale Under Mortgage and a Notice of Intention to Enforce Security under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, was proven.
• Entitlement to possession and issuance of a writ of possession followed from the defendant's failure to redeem within the redemption period.

Facts of the case

First National Financial GP Corporation brought a motion for summary judgment against David Edmond Sabourin in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to enforce a mortgage by way of power of sale, and for possession of the mortgaged property and a writ of possession. The mortgage was registered on February 5, 2024, against the property municipally known as 3042 Dangerfield Road, Kemptville, Ontario, and originally secured a loan of $540,000.00. It was later assigned to the plaintiff under a registered Transfer of Charge dated November 12, 2025, vesting the plaintiff with all rights under the mortgage and related security. The mortgage was renewed and amended with a maturity date of February 5, 2026, an interest rate of 6.54 per cent per annum, and required monthly payments. The defendant defaulted in payment beginning August 5, 2025, and the default continued. The plaintiff issued a demand for payment, served a Notice of Sale Under Mortgage, and served a Notice of Intention to Enforce Security under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The defendant did not redeem within the redemption period. In his Statement of Defence, the defendant admitted the existence of the mortgage and acknowledged that payments were in arrears, though he disputed portions of the amount claimed and denied the plaintiff's entitlement to possession, without filing any supporting evidence. According to the plaintiff's affidavit evidence, the amount owing as of November 13, 2025 was $564,514.56, plus continuing interest at the contractual rate of 6.54 per cent per annum.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

Several features of the mortgage security were central to the motion. The mortgage documents authorized the plaintiff to realize upon its security in the event of default, which grounded both the power of sale enforcement and the claim for possession. The affidavit of Danny Sougaris established that the charges disputed by the defendant were authorized by the mortgage and standard charge terms or represented expenses incurred by the plaintiff following default, and that evidence stood uncontradicted. The mortgage security also entitled the plaintiff to costs on a substantial indemnity basis. Interest was payable at the contractual rate of 6.54 per cent per annum until judgment and thereafter until payment.

The court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Abrams applied Rule 20.04, which requires the court to grant summary judgment where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial, guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, which confirmed that summary judgment should be used where the court can fairly and justly determine the merits on the record before it. The plaintiff's evidence established the existence of a valid mortgage, the plaintiff's status as mortgagee by assignment, the defendant's payment default, compliance with the contractual and statutory prerequisites to enforcement by power of sale, the amount owing, and the plaintiff's entitlement to possession following expiry of the redemption period. Because the defendant filed no evidence, the court held that mere allegations in a pleading are insufficient to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial. Nothing in the record contradicted the plaintiff's accounting, challenged the validity of the mortgage documents, disputed the occurrence of default, or demonstrated any procedural deficiency in the enforcement process. The court was satisfied that the record permitted the necessary findings of fact and a final determination of the issues. On possession, the Statement of Claim expressly sought that relief, the defendant had notice and an opportunity to respond, and no evidence suggested any person with an interest requiring further notice had been deprived of that opportunity. Having found entitlement to possession, the court considered it appropriate to direct that a writ of possession issue to permit enforcement should voluntary possession not be delivered.

Ruling and overall outcome

The motion for summary judgment was granted, making First National Financial GP Corporation the successful party. Judgment issued in its favour against David Edmond Sabourin in the amount of $564,514.56, together with interest at the contractual rate of 6.54 per cent per annum from November 13, 2025 to the date of judgment and thereafter in accordance with the mortgage and applicable law. The plaintiff was granted possession of the property municipally known as 3042 Dangerfield Road, Kemptville, Ontario, with a writ of possession to issue forthwith. Costs of the action and the motion were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to the mortgage security and fixed at $17,065.12 (stated in the judgment as "$17.065.12," which appears to reflect a typographical rendering of that figure), bringing the total monetary award to $581,579.68 plus post-November 13, 2025 interest.