Law360 Canada (May 11, 2023, 5:50 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Morin from deficiency judgment decision on multiple grounds including failure of Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) to comply with Civil Procedure Rules, reliance on inadmissible evidence, abuse of process, and judicial bias. Morin and Kamstra entered into a collateral mortgage with RBC in April 2012 securing a maximum of $266,000. The property was located in Aylesford East, Kings County, Nova Scotia (Property). In February 2017, Morin conveyed his interest in the Property to Kamstra. In 2018, he advised RBC of the transfer and provided his contact information in Alberta, where he resided. He informed RBC that he would accept service of any documents by email. The mortgage went into default, and on September 13, 2018 RBC commenced the foreclosure proceeding. RBC was the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale and subsequently resold the Property. RBC filed a Notice of Motion for deficiency judgment. The evidence in support of the motion was the affidavit of counsel for RBC, Godin. Godin’s affidavit attached, as exhibits, various court issued documents as well as Wetmore appraisal of the Property valuing it at $130,000 and Cooke comparative market analysis, valuing it between $130,000 and $135,000 and a brokerage agreement with a list price for the Property of $143,000. Although Morin was aware RBC was making a motion for deficiency judgment, the documents had not been delivered to him as required by the Civil Procedure Rules (Rules). Morin sent an email to counsel for RBC demanding service by email in accordance with the agreed procedure. Ultimately, RBC’s motion for deficiency judgment against Morin and Kamstra in the amount of $62,585 plus costs was allowed....