In Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Charette, the issue arose in the context of a mortgagee’s action for enforcement by way of obtaining a writ of possession after trial; reference is made in the decision to Rule 63.01(3). On the facts of the Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Charette the court noted that the bank and the defaulting mortgagor in possession had agreed to an order of permitting the mortgagors to remain in the mortgaged premises pending the appeal and pending the appeal, the mortgagors would make four payments on specified dates before the hearing of the appeal. The mortgagors failed to make the first two payments resulting in the bank returning the motion, and the mortgagors bringing a cross-motion for a stay of the writ of possession being enforced pending the appeal.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.