COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Lusink v. Disterheft, 2013 ONCA 764
DATE: 20131217
DOCKET: C57134, C57135 and C57136
Epstein, Lauwers and Pardu JJ.A.
C57134
BETWEEN
John Lusink, Janet Mather, Al Orlando, Gino Romanese, Kevin Somers, Ryan Duffy, Lyle Hamilton, Theodore Babiak, Emily Babiak, Brookfield Real Estate Services Manager Limited, Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd., and Brookfield Asset Management Inc.
Applicants (Respondents)
and
Terry Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Motria Disterheft, a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak-Disterheft, a.k.a. Motria Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Goshulak a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Luba Goshulak, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Bliss’que Executive Coaching, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Perlova Platinum, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Koronex, Bliss’que International Global Investing Company Ltd., Perlova Canada Limited, Optic Fibre Grow Inc., Fibre Sun Ltd. and John Does No. 1 to 100.
Respondents (Appellants)
C57135
BETWEEN
Ian Ihnatowycz, Donna Ihnatowycz, Vincent Joseph Murphy, Adrienne Olga Murphy, Matthew Julian Murphy, Adrianna Katherine Murphy, Katharyne Roxalana Goshulak, Mary Amilia Parzei, Nykola Leon Parzei, Stephanie Daria Parzei, Katheryne Olha Parzei, John Ostap Goshulak, Debra Lenore Goshulak-Morningstar, Peter John Goshulak, Emily Ann Goshulak, Larissa Morningstar Daria Goshulak, Daria Anna Goshulak, Marta Witer, James Temerty, Louise Temerty, and First Generation Capital Inc.
Applicants (Respondents)
and
Terry Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Motria Disterheft, a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak-Disterheft, a.k.a. Motria Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Goshulak a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Luba Goshulak, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Bliss’que Executive Coaching, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Perlova Platinum, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Koronex, Bliss’que International Global Investing Company Ltd., Perlova Canada Limited, Optic Fibre Grow Inc., Fibre Sun Ltd. and John Does No. 1 to 100.
Respondents (Appellants)
C57136
BETWEEN
Leslie Ferenec, Bob Onyschuk, Michael Babin, Dawn Babin, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Ruslana Wrzesnewskyj, Myroslawa Anna Diakun and Murray Baker
Applicants (Respondents)
and
Terry Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Motria Disterheft, a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak-Disterheft, a.k.a. Motria Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Goshulak a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Luba Goshulak, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Bliss’que Executive Coaching, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Perlova Platinum, Terry Disterheft c.o.b. as Koronex, Bliss’que International Global Investing Company Ltd., Perlova Canada Limited, Optic Fibre Grow Inc., Fibre Sun Ltd. and John Does No. 1 to 100.
Respondents (Appellants)
Counsel:
Terry Disterheft, acting in person
Barry Bresner, for the respondents in action number CV-12-460776
Brett Rideout, for the respondents in action number CV-12-460915
Michael Babin, acting in person and for the respondent Dawn Babin
Bob Onyschuk, Q.C., acting in person
Leslie Ferenc, acting in person
Heard: December 12, 2013
On appeal from the orders of Justice Sandra Chapnik of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 6, 2013.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant appeals the orders of Chapnik J. declaring her and her known aliases a vexatious litigant on the basis she was denied natural justice. The appellant argues that Pollack J. in her order of October 31, 2012 set aside a full day for argument of the respondents’ motions and that the hearing before Chapnik J. concluded in the morning thereby depriving her of several hours in which to make further submissions.
[2] We find no merit in this argument. At the beginning of the hearing before Chapnik J., the appellant provided the court with 94 pages of written submissions. The motion judge adjourned the hearing to allow time for her to read the appellant’s most detailed argument. The hearing resumed during which the appellant was given a full opportunity to answer the questions the motion judge had arising from the appellant’s submissions. After hearing the arguments of the moving parties and further submissions from the appellant, the motion judge discussed the terms of any orders she may make and the issue of costs. The motion judge then reserved her decision for eight days at the end of which she delivered detailed reasons, the analysis and conclusion of which have not been challenged.
[3] We also note that, neither before the motion judge nor before this court, has the appellant ever indicated what further submissions she would like to make.
[4] In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the appellant was provided every opportunity to make her case before the motion judge. The manner in which the motion judge conducted the hearing, her reasoning and the orders she made are unassailable.
[5] The appeals are therefore dismissed.
[6] The respondents in CV-12-460776 and in CV-12-460915 are each entitled to their costs in the amount of $1,000, including disbursements and H.S.T.