Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) Around The World
- Chapter 3 The History of JDR in Canada
- Chapter 4 JDR's Response to the Weaknesses of Litigation
- Chapter 5 ADR v. JDR
- Chapter 6 JDR Produces Satisfactory Results: The Divorce Case
- Chapter 7 Advantages and Disadvantages of JDR
- Chapter 8 Justice and Fairness in JDR: The Motor Vehicle Accident with Pedestrian Case
- Chapter 9 Types of Judges: Skill, Temperament and Attitude in JDR Temperament in an Estate Dispute Case
- Chapter 10 Confidentiality and Privacy in JDR
- Chapter 11 Which Cases are Unsuitable for JDR?
- Chapter 12 Juggling Complexity in JDR: The Falling Rocks Case
- Chapter 13 Divergent Interests of Adversarial Lawyers and Their Clients
- Chapter 14 JDR and the Role of Precedent: The Medical Malpractice Case
- Chapter 15 The Importance of a Robust JDR Intake System
- Chapter 16 The Chief Justices and How to Triage Special (SPEC) JDR Cases
- Chapter 17 Specialized JDRs (SPECs): A Look at Three Cases and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Chapter 18 How to Prepare for and What to do During a JDR: The Power Pole Case
- Chapter 19 The New World of Online Dispute Resolution (OJDR)
- Epilogue: The Future of JDR
- Bibliography
- Appendix
- Teaching Guide
- Case Studies
- Index
1 - The Contaminated Land Case
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) Around The World
- Chapter 3 The History of JDR in Canada
- Chapter 4 JDR's Response to the Weaknesses of Litigation
- Chapter 5 ADR v. JDR
- Chapter 6 JDR Produces Satisfactory Results: The Divorce Case
- Chapter 7 Advantages and Disadvantages of JDR
- Chapter 8 Justice and Fairness in JDR: The Motor Vehicle Accident with Pedestrian Case
- Chapter 9 Types of Judges: Skill, Temperament and Attitude in JDR Temperament in an Estate Dispute Case
- Chapter 10 Confidentiality and Privacy in JDR
- Chapter 11 Which Cases are Unsuitable for JDR?
- Chapter 12 Juggling Complexity in JDR: The Falling Rocks Case
- Chapter 13 Divergent Interests of Adversarial Lawyers and Their Clients
- Chapter 14 JDR and the Role of Precedent: The Medical Malpractice Case
- Chapter 15 The Importance of a Robust JDR Intake System
- Chapter 16 The Chief Justices and How to Triage Special (SPEC) JDR Cases
- Chapter 17 Specialized JDRs (SPECs): A Look at Three Cases and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Chapter 18 How to Prepare for and What to do During a JDR: The Power Pole Case
- Chapter 19 The New World of Online Dispute Resolution (OJDR)
- Epilogue: The Future of JDR
- Bibliography
- Appendix
- Teaching Guide
- Case Studies
- Index
Summary
Facts
This case involves a plaintiff who took out a mortgage to purchase a land parcel for development. Despite the obstacle of the land being contaminated, the plaintiff went to great lengths to pay off his debts to the mortgage lender, including handing over his family's country home. Nonetheless, these efforts over many years did not meet the lender's expectation for interest and principal repayment and resulted in several lawsuits. The case was ultimately settled at JDR with both sides walking away from all their claims.
Lead-up
In January 2005, two friends, Edward and David, purchased a piece of industrial land that they perceived to have development potential. They made the purchase through a newly incorporated company, 270 Incorporated (270 Inc.), in which they were equal shareholders. Each agreed to finance half of the $750,000 purchase price. Edward financed his half with a vendor-takeback loan from the seller, who was his sister. David obtained and personally guaranteed a mortgage loan from a third party, Forte Banking Corporation (Forte Banking), which had previously provided David and his wife a mortgage for their country home.
A month later, David's counsel (who incorporated 270 Inc. for David and Edward) told David that the land had a caveat on behalf of Coal Creek Oil and Gas due to contaminated waste beneath the soil. David and Edward had a difficult time making mortgage payments and otherwise advancing their development project. Within several months of purchasing the land, Edward sold his 50 percent share in 270 Inc. to the sole shareholder of Forte Banking, and his sister transferred the mortgage to Forte Banking. It would eventually come to light that Edward and his sister engaged in a series of related party transactions for increasingly greater amounts that inflated the land's value and looked like a classic straw buyer mortgage fraud.
Even though Edward left the deal, David still felt there was development potential in the land and made further agreements with Forte Banking to help with the payments over several years. In early 2006, Forte Banking lent David additional funds securitized by a mortgage on David's private home in the city, and also received David's 50 percent shares in 270 Inc. as security for his debt.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Judicial Dispute ResolutionNew Roles for Judges in Ensuring Justice, pp. 199 - 204Publisher: Anthem PressPrint publication year: 2023