although duly served

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Sandra Di Nardo to stay the enforcement of a judgment and related contempt orders pending her appeal in a contentious estate matter.

The court clarified the scope of its jurisdiction to grant a stay, distinguishing between orders that are and are not under appeal, and ultimately granted a temporary stay of the contempt order and warrant of committal pending a motion in the Superior Court.

The court found that the criteria for a stay were met, as the appeal could be rendered moot without interim relief.

The applicant, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 304, brought an unopposed application under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, seeking to enforce the Act and its Declaration against the respondents, owners and occupant of a condominium unit.

The application arose from the respondents’ repeated refusal to allow access to their unit to investigate and repair a water leak affecting the unit below, as well as ongoing harassing and disruptive conduct by the occupant, Rick Goncza.

The court found the evidence uncontradicted, held that the respondents breached their obligations under the Act and Declaration, and granted the orders sought, including access for repairs and a cease and desist order against Rick Goncza.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant, jointly and severally against all respondents.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of an amended monetary judgment issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California arising from a fraudulent transfer action.

The foreign judgment included reconveyance of California properties and a monetary award exceeding $4 million USD against the respondents.

The court considered whether the foreign court had a real and substantial connection to the dispute and whether any defences such as fraud, breach of natural justice, or public policy applied.

Finding that the respondents had attorned to the California court’s jurisdiction and that the judgment was final and conclusive, the court concluded that the requirements for recognition of a foreign judgment were satisfied.

As no responding parties appeared or raised any defences, the Ontario court ordered recognition and enforcement of the California judgment.

The applicant sought enforcement of minutes of settlement reached during court‑mandated mediation in a wrongful dismissal action.

The settlement required the respondents to pay $18,500, including a portion payable directly to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to cover employment insurance overpayment.

After paying an initial instalment, the respondents repudiated the agreement and refused to complete the settlement.

The court held that the signed minutes of settlement constituted a legally binding agreement and that the essential terms were clear and agreed upon while both parties were represented by counsel.

Applying the principles governing enforcement of settlements under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court enforced the agreement and granted judgment for the outstanding settlement balance.