Summary: This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment related to a mortgage payment and granting a writ of possession. The appellants, 1322295 Ontario Ltd. and Marino Rakovac, challenged the motion judge's decision on the grounds of unconscionability and the granting of summary judgment, which were both dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Key Points:

• Mortgage Details: The mortgage was on a one-year term, requiring interest-only monthly payments and matured in March 2022. The terms allowed for a potential renewal under specific conditions, which included additional fees.
• Defenses and Appeal: The appellants raised defenses at the first instance that were dismissed by the motion judge. On appeal, they argued the judge erred in not finding the respondent's actions at the time of renewal unconscionable.
• Court's Analysis: The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge, noting that the mortgage renewal was discretionary, and the terms offered for extension, which were not accepted by the appellants, did not constitute unconscionability. The court also supported the motion judge's adverse inference from the appellants' failure to provide evidence from the mortgage broker.
• Conclusion on Unconscionability: There was no renewal contract, hence nothing to set aside under the doctrine of unconscionability, and the use of this doctrine to enforce a renewal on the original terms was deemed misplaced.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000, all-inclusive, in favor of the respondent. The decision underscores the discretionary nature of mortgage renewals and the boundaries of unconscionability in contract renewals.