Toronto-Dominion Bank v Lukus Developments Inc
The Toronto-Dominion Bank
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lukus Developments Inc
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Dominic Eugene Urban also known as Dominic Urban
Law Firm / Organization
DS Lawyers Canada LLP
Lawyer(s)

Lindsay Amantea

Law Firm / Organization
Baker Law Firm
Lawyer(s)

Roger Baker

Kelsi Bree Urban also known as Kelsi Urban
Law Firm / Organization
DS Lawyers Canada LLP
Lawyer(s)

Lindsay Amantea

Law Firm / Organization
Baker Law Firm
Lawyer(s)

Roger Baker

Dominic Urban
Law Firm / Organization
DS Lawyers Canada LLP
Lawyer(s)

Lindsay Amantea

Law Firm / Organization
Baker Law Firm
Lawyer(s)

Roger Baker

Kelsi Urban
Law Firm / Organization
DS Lawyers Canada LLP
Lawyer(s)

Lindsay Amantea

Law Firm / Organization
Baker Law Firm
Lawyer(s)

Roger Baker

Enright West Ltd
Law Firm / Organization
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Lawyer(s)

Nathan Stewart

Enright Monterra G.P. Ltd, as general partner for and on behalf of Enright Monterra Limited Partnership
Law Firm / Organization
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
Lawyer(s)

Nathan Stewart

Key Points

  • Background: Dominic and Kelsi Urban, as personal guarantors for a corporate debt of 2101705 Alberta Ltd., sought release from a mortgage on their residence used as security for their obligations.
  • Primary Legal Issues:
    1. Responsibility for Jovica Debt: Whether West, after acquiring properties with a Jovica Mortgage, assumed responsibility for the underlying debt (Jovica Debt).
    2. Indemnity: Whether the Asset Purchase Agreements (APAs) provided indemnity to the Urbans and related entities regarding the Jovica Debt.
    3. Release from Obligations (Novation): Whether a novation occurred that released the Urbans and related entities from their guarantee obligations.
    4. Equitable Release: Whether the Urbans should be released from their guarantees due to changes in the debt's nature.
  • Court's Findings:
    • Assumption of Debt: West assumed the mortgage encumbrance but not the underlying Jovica Debt; no waiver of claims against the Urbans.
    • Indemnity: The Urbans were not entitled to indemnity under the APAs.
    • Novation: No novation was found; the Urbans remained liable under the guarantees.
    • Equitable Release: The court held it was not inequitable to enforce the guarantees against the Urbans.
  • Conclusion: The application by the Urbans to be released from their obligations was dismissed.

Outcome:

  • Successful Party: Third Party Respondents: Enright West Ltd and Enright Monterra G.P. Ltd.
  • No specific monetary awards, damages, or costs were specified. Cost determinations are left open for further submissions.
Court of King's Bench of Alberta
2303 00075; 2301 03667
Banking/Finance
Respondent