Two Actions were brought before a Master with respect to issues arising out of one mortgage transaction, wherein the Plaintiff bank argued that it would never have granted the mortgage but for an alleged fraudulent scheme. The Defendants in one Action, the appraisers and the lawyer, moved for Summary Dismissal under Rules 7.2 and 7.3. The Defendant mortgagor in the related Action also brought a Summary Dismissal Application which was heard at the same time. Both Applications were dismissed by the Master and all Defendants appealed.

The Defendants argued the Master erred primarily on points of law, including that the Master considered authorities dealing with the incorrect statutory provision, and also erred by failing to answer a question posed in their Applications about the effect of a final Order for foreclosure on damages.

Justice Park held that the Master correctly applied the law in relation to the relevant statutory provision and correctly considered the various defences to the claim. At the very least, the alleged fraud was an issue that demanded a Trial. Park J. also held that there was no error with respect to the question posed about the effect of a final Order for foreclosure: the issues in the Plaintiff’s claim and issues in the foreclosure Action were distinct. The Appeals were dismissed.