Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-04-22
Docket: COA-24-CV-1016

Before: Peter Lauwers, Lise Favreau, Jonathon Dawe

Between

Alexander Gerasimov, Sofia Gerasimov and Mykola Ozerianko
Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim (Respondents/Appellants by way of cross-appeal)

and

Vadim Ratayev and Irina Ratayeva
Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (Irina Ratayeva: Appellant/Respondent by way of cross-appeal)

Appearances:
Alex Sutton, for the appellant/respondent by way of cross-appeal, Irina Ratayeva
Ari Lokshin, for the respondents/appellants by way of cross-appeal, Alexander Gerasimov, Sofia Gerasimov and Mykola Ozerianko

Heard and released orally: April 15, 2025

On appeal from the order of Justice Markus Koehnen of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 15, 2024.

Reasons for Decision

Authority of the Case Conference Judge

[1] We express concern that the case conference judge’s decision might not fall within the range of his authority under rr. 50.13(5) and (6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. He found in his June 17, 2024 endorsement that there was a settlement and determined the amounts to be paid and to whom.

Inadequacy of Reasons

[2] Regrettably, the case conference judge’s reasons for his decision are inadequate. He does not set them out but merely states that he does “not accept [the appellant’s] argument that she did not enter into a settlement.” The mediation report, which noted that a settlement had been reached, provided no details of the settlement on which the case conference judge could rely. He cited no evidence in support of his findings. There is no record of any evidence before him, and he cites none.

Requirement for Intelligible Reasons and Evidentiary Record

[3] One of the reasons for judicial decisions noted by the Supreme Court in R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at paras. 46 and 66, is to permit meaningful appellate review. If the trial reasons “do not explain the ‘what’ and the ‘why’, but the answers to those questions are clear in the record, there will be no error”: R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 801, at para. 70. However, if the answers are not on the record, “cursory reasons may obscure potential legal errors and not permit an appellate court to follow the trial judge’s chain of reasoning”: G.F., at para. 75. This was the case here. The lack of intelligible reasons showing a chain of reasoning means that there is no basis on which this court can decide the appeal on the merits. There needs to be an evidentiary record.

Disposition

[4] The appeal and cross-appeal are allowed, and the case conference judge’s order is set aside in its entirety. Each party is to bear their own costs.

“P. Lauwers J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”
“J. Dawe J.A.”