Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation:  Concentra Financial Services Association v. MacKay, 2012 NSSC 333

 

Date:  20120802

Docket:  Hfx No. 356543

Registry:  Halifax

 

 

Between:

Concentra Financial Services Association

Plaintiff

and

 

David Douglas MacKay

 

 

                                                                                                             Defendant

 

                                                             

                                                      DECISION

 

 

 

Judge:                                      The Honourable Justice Gerald R. P. Moir

 

Heard:                                     August 2, 2012

 

Oral Decision Transcribed,

Edited, and Signed on              September 25, 2012

 

Counsel:                                  Joe McNally, for plaintiff

 

David Douglas MacKay, on his own   

 

 

 


Moir J. (Orally):

 

[1]              Mr. MacKay's allegation that the property manager broke into the premises is not supported by any evidence before me and it is likely based on the evidence I do have that they simply exercised the mortgagee's right to take possession which was granted to them by Mr. MacKay when he signed the mortgage.

 

[2]              As regards the charges, I have reviewed them and they seem to me to be appropriate.

 

[3]              His greatest concern as Mr. McNally says is that the property was worth more than it sold for.  First off, I believe it is settled law that once a mortgagee buys the mortgaged property at a sheriff's sale, the mortgagee owes no duty of care to the mortgagor.  No duty to get a fair price.

 

[4]              Secondly, I am satisfied based on the evidence that is before me that the mortgagee, through its property management company, saw to it that there was a fair exposure of the property on the market and the evidence satisfies me that it did achieve market value.


 

[5]              Therefore, I will grant the order for a deficiency judgment.

 

 

J.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.