Nikolay Tenev

The applicant and respondent, who are siblings, each own a 50% interest in a residential property.

The applicant commenced an application for partition and sale of the property.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order to compel the applicant to sell his 50% interest to her at fair market value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the Partition Act, it lacks the jurisdiction to force one joint tenant to sell their interest to the other.

The court declined to award costs to the successful applicant to encourage the parties to expeditiously proceed with the open market sale of the property.

The court considered costs following the dismissal of a motion to set aside a default judgment for foreclosure and the noting in default of the defendant, Eric Manirambona.

The court found that the defendant's conduct, including intentional delay and false allegations, warranted an award of substantial indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $28,000, payable forthwith by the defendant to the plaintiff, and excluded Ural Link Ltd. from the costs order as it did not participate in the motion.

The applicant, Veronica Ann Balkisson, sought a declaration that her son, Stefan Sandy, held title to a property as a bare trustee for her, claiming a resulting trust.

The respondents, Stefan and his wife Andrea, argued that the property was a gift from Veronica to Stefan and his sister Heaven, as an advance on their inheritance.

The court found that Veronica intended to make, and did make, a gift of the property to Stefan and Heaven, and that her later change of mind did not alter the legal effect of the gift.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Eric Manirambona, moved to set aside a default judgment for foreclosure on a commercial property in Renfrew, Ontario.

The court reviewed the chronology of events, the defendant’s financial circumstances, and the applicable legal principles.

The court found that the motion was not brought with reasonable promptness, there was no reasonable prospect of payment, and the defendant had not been active in raising the necessary funds.

The court also found no special circumstances or intrinsic value in the property for the defendant.

The motion was dismissed.