This case stems from a foreclosure initiated by the Respondent, a bank, against the Appellants due to mortgage default. Following the expiration of the redemption period, the Respondent gained possession of the property through court orders and enforcement by a bailiff. The Appellants opposed the foreclosure, unlawfully re-entered the property after being evicted, and filed Applications contesting both the foreclosure proceedings and the enforcement measures, despite a court-issued Redemption Order and multiple Possession Orders.

The first Appeal stemmed from an Application filed by the Appellants in June 2024, alleging procedural irregularities, and demanding immediate return of the property and "proof of debt" in original “wet ink” format. The second Appeal related to a December 2024 Application in which the Appellants alleged unlawful enforcement, breaches of fundamental rights, and bad faith conduct. They sought return of the property, declarations of Charter violations, and damages. Both Applications were dismissed.

A key issue in both appeals was the Appellants’ reliance on procedural arguments under the Rules, particularly regarding admissibility and format of evidence. The Court rejected their claims that procedural defects (such as missing rule numbers or deviations from prescribed forms) invalidated the documents. Under Rule 1.5, non-prejudicial irregularities can be cured. Rule 13.13(1) confirms that forms can be “modified as circumstances require”, and Rule 13.16 allows deviation from prescribed forms if it does not mislead or alter substance.

Regarding the appeal record, the Appellants objected to the Respondent’s Extracts of Key Evidence, arguing it contained “new evidence” contrary to Rule 14.27(1)(c). The Court found most of the materials proper under Rule 14.28, which includes trial court evidence and filings as part of the appeal record. The Court only struck documents not previously part of the record, such as claims filed in unrelated proceedings.

Further, the Appellants’ claim that enforcement required a writ under the Civil Enforcement Act was rejected. Rule 9.25 allowed the Applications Judge to issue Possession Orders, and those Orders were validly enforced with bailiff and police assistance.

No reviewable error was found in either Order under appeal. The Court found no violation of procedural fairness, no breach of fundamental rights, and dismissed pseudolegal arguments regarding debt validation. It held that the Appellants’ continued efforts to reclaim possession constituted impermissible collateral attacks on prior valid Orders. Both Appeals were dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a solicitor-client basis.