Warford v. Bell, (2005) 297 N.B.R.(2d) 212 (TD)

• Judge: Glennie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: November 07, 2005
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (2005), 297 N.B.R.(2d) 212 (TD);2005 NBQB 454

Warford v. Bell (2005), 297 N.B.R.(2d) 212 (TD);

    297 R.N.-B.(2e) 212; 771 A.P.R. 212

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.045

Gordon Wesley Warford and Kitty Noressa Warford (applicants) v. Vida M. Bell (respondent)

(S/M/63/05; 2005 NBQB 454)

Indexed As: Warford v. Bell

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Glennie, J.

November 8, 2005.

Summary:

The applicants purchased land and a mo­bile home from the respondent by way of a "take back" mortgage for the full purchase price. The respondent commenced power of sale proceedings pursuant to the terms of the mortgage and s. 44 of the Property Act. The applicant sought an injunction restraining the respondent from proceeding with the mort­gage sale.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, allowed the appli­cation.

Injunctions - Topic 6125

Particular matters - Mortgage foreclosures - Restraining power of sale - The respon­dent commenced power of sale proceedings pursuant to the terms of a mortgage and s. 44 of the Property Act - She alleged that the applicants had defaulted because they had leased the property to a third party without her consent - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, restrained the respondent from proceeding with the mortgage sale - The applicants were not in default - The respondent had not acted in good faith and in conformity with the provisions of the mortgage (writ­ten notice of default allowing time to cure default) or s. 45(1) of the Property Act (service of notice of sale by registered or certified mail) - The applicants would suffer irreparable harm that would be difficult to compensate in damages if they lost the property at the mortgage sale - The balance of convenience also favoured the applicants.

Cases Noticed:

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 54 C.P.R.(3d) 114, refd to. [para. 33].

Canada East Manufacturing Inc. v. Harvey and Maritime Wire Co. (1996), 183 N.B.R.(2d) 293; 465 A.P.R. 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Yule Inc. v. Atlantic Pizza Delight Fran­chise (1968) Ltd. et al. (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 505; 80 D.L.R.(3d) 725; 35 C.P.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 39].

Allsco Building Products Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Interna­tional Union, Local 1288P (1998), 207 N.B.R.(2d) 102; 529 A.P.R. 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Trans Canada Credit Corp. v. Morehouse (1997), 193 N.B.R.(2d) 308; 493 A.P.R. 308 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Randall A. Wilson, on behalf of the appli­cants;

John M. McNair, on behalf of the respon­dent.

This application was heard on November 7, 2005, before Glennie, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John, who delivered the following oral judgment on November 8, 2005.