Court File and Parties
Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 20230719 Docket: COA-22-CV-0035
Miller, Harvison Young and Favreau JJ.A.
Between
Donavan Locke Plaintiff (Appellant)
and
Shannon Lyndsey Murphy, Faiza Sultana and Violette Sypniewski Defendants (Respondents)
Counsel: Olando Vinton, for the appellant James R.G. Cook and Dara Hirbod, for the respondent Shannon Lyndsey Murphy Mathieu Bélanger, for the respondent Faiza Sultana Antal Bakaity, for the respondent Violette Sypniewski
Heard and released orally: July 18, 2023
On appeal from the orders of Regional Senior Justice Paul R. Sweeny of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 2, 2022.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Reasons for Decision
The appellant, Donovan Locke, and the respondent, Violetta Sypniewski, are former common law partners and are involved in a family law dispute. They previously owned a home as joint tenants. After they separated in November 2019, Ms. Sypniewski obtained legal advice from her former lawyer, the respondent Faiza Sultana, who recommended that she transfer her interest in the property to herself. On February 19, 2021, the respondent Shannon Lyndsey Murphy, who was Ms. Sypniewski’s lawyer at that time, prepared and registered the transfer which severed the joint tenancy.
2Mr. Locke then started three actions arising from this transfer. The first action is only against Ms. Sypniewski, and alleges that he holds a 100% beneficial interest in the property and that the transfer of the property to a tenancy in common was a fraudulent conveyance. The second action is against Ms. Sypniewski and Ms. Sultana, and alleges deceit and conspiracy. The third action is against Ms. Sypniewski, Ms. Sultana and Ms. Murphy, and it also alleges several torts, including deceit and conspiracy. The respondents brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the second and third actions. At the same time, Mr. Locke brought several motions of his own, including a motion based on a Notice of Constitutional Question seeking a declaration that an alleged common law rule that a lawyer cannot conspire with a client is invalid, and a motion for a finding that Ms. Murphy be found in criminal contempt based on the contents of her affidavit on the motions for summary judgment.
3The motion judge granted the respondents’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed Mr. Locke’s motions.
[4]
Analysis
Mr. Locke appeals the motion judge’s orders dismissing the second and third actions and dismissing his motions. He raises numerous grounds of appeal. Essentially, the appeal amounts to an attempt to reargue the motions before the motion judge. That is not the role of this court. In any event, we see no errors in the motion judge’s decision.
5The motion judge’s finding that this was an appropriate case for summary judgment is well supported by the record. As found by the motion judge, Mr. Locke presented no evidence in support of his claims nor did he provide evidence that he suffered any damages. As also found by the motion judge, the transfer of the property from a joint tenancy to a tenancy in common was permitted, and, most importantly, it does not preclude Mr. Locke from arguing that he is the beneficial owner of the property in the first action, which has not been dismissed.
6The motion judge was also fully justified in dismissing Mr. Locke’s motions. As found by the motion judge, the motion based on the Notice of Constitutional Question was “ill conceived” for many reasons, including because the blanket principle as asserted by Mr. Locke does not exist, the proposed question does not raise a constitutional issue, and it is not the role of the courts to answer such questions in the abstract. In addition, there was absolutely no basis for holding Ms. Murphy in criminal contempt.
[7]
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.
[8]
Costs
As agreed between the parties, Mr. Locke is to pay $10,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to each of the respondents.
“B.W. Miller J.A.”
“A. Harvison Young J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”