The Court declined to permanently stay or set aside a warrant of seizure and sale despite errors in underlying registration documents, a typographical error on the warrant, and the judgment creditor's failure to clearly reconcile the outstanding principal or account for an offsetting costs order in the defendant's favour. Instead, the Court exercised its discretion under r 36.01 to amend the warrant to reflect the correct amount owing (including the offset) and granted a temporary 21-day stay to allow the defendant time to pay. The Court confirmed, following Anderson v Liddell, that disproportionality between the value of real property and the amount owing on a warrant does not preclude execution where the property is the only available asset.
The full text is available to signed-in members.