Court File and Parties

CITATION: Greenmark Builders Inc. v. Tarion Warranty Corporation, 2026 ONSC 1769 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 190/24 JR

DATE: 20260325

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: GREENMARK BUILDERS INC., Applicant AND: TARION WARRANTY CORPORATION, Respondent

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Georges Alexander Nassrallah, Quratul Siddiqui and Shawna-Kay Armstrong, for the Solicitors for the Applicant

HEARD IN WRITING: March 25, 2026

Endorsement

D.L. Corbett J.

[1] The solicitors for the applicant seek an order removing them from the record. Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed materials on the motion, which was directed to be heard in writing. Mr Kranenburg, of the applicant, did write to the court, by email on March 24, 2026, asking that the motion not proceed today.

[2] Mr Kranenburg’s basis for seeking an adjournment of this motion is (a) they have not retained new counsel; and (b) they have not yet obtained their file from the moving solicitors of record. It is not clear to me why these points would have any bearing on whether the moving solicitors are entitled to an order removing them from the record. If (as stated) the applicant intends to move for an order that it be represented by a non-solicitor, it is permitted to do that by the terms of the draft order removing the solicitors of record. If (as stated) the applicant is unable to obtain its file from the moving solicitors, it may bring its own motion for this relief after the solicitors have been removed from the record (bearing in mind that solicitors may be entitled to retain some file materials if their accounts for services have not been paid). The motion materials for this motion were served on the applicant on January 20, 2026; the applicant has had plenty of time to bring a motion to be represented by a non-lawyer or to seek the court’s assistance respecting transfer of file materials and cannot obtain an adjournment of this motion by sending an email at the last minute raising these issues.

[3] Mr Kranenburg also argued that the applicant was unable to participate in the motion because it was not represented by counsel and had not yet obtained an order to be represented by a non-lawyer. I do not accept this argument: the whole point of the motion is to compel the applicant to take these steps in the aftermath of the moving solicitors being removed from the record: it can hardly be a condition precedent for the motion that the applicant has already obtained new representation. This point cannot be lost on the applicant since it participated in a prior motion for removal of solicitors of record before Associate Justice Kamal on January 30th in Ottawa.

[4] I am satisfied that the solicitor/client relationship has broken down. Although the moving solicitors of record have not addressed possible prejudice because of the timing of the requested order, I see no prejudice to the respondent and the respondent has not raised objection. On the materials filed, there is no imminent hearing date and no apparent prejudice to the applicant.

[5] Order to go, as sought, in the form of the draft order submitted at tab 3 of the motion record, subject to the following amendments to the draft order:

(a) The title of the order shall be amended to show that the motion was before D.L. Corbett J. on March 25, 2026.

(b) The first sentence of the preamble shall be amended to show that the motion was “read this day at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street, Toronto.”

(c) The second sentence of the preamble shall be amended to delete the phrase “on hearing the submission of the parties in attendance” and substituting therefor the phrase “and no responding materials having been filed by the applicant or the respondent.”

(d) A third recital shall be added as follows: “AND ON BEING SATISFIED that this motion was served on and should have come to the attention of the applicant, no affected party being under a disability,”

(e) Paragraph 6 of the draft order be deleted (since it has been incorporated in the recitals).

[6] The Registrar may cause the order to be issued and amended upon a draft order being submitted in accordance with this endorsement.

[7] The moving solicitors do not seek an order for costs if the motion is unopposed. I do not consider the applicant’s last-minute email to have put the moving solicitors to material additional expense and so I make no order as to costs.

“D.L. Corbett J.”

DATE RELEASED: March 25, 2026