CITATION: Lobsinger v. Zeleny, 2016 ONSC 7441
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-199
DATE: 20161130
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
David Edward Lobsinger and
June Victoria Fay Lobsinger
Mr. Erroll Treslan, for the Plaintiff
Plaintiffs
- and -
Julie Zeleny
Mr. Ross Thomson, for the Defendant
Defendant
HEARD: November 22, 23, 24, 2016
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Conlan J.
I. Introduction
The Background
[1] The Defendant, Julie Zeleny (“Zeleny”), and her then common law partner, Tim Lobsinger (“Tim”), jointly and severally, signed a promissory note (the “Note”) in June 2012.
[2] The Note was in favour of the Plaintiffs, David and June Lobsinger (“David” and “June”), Tim’s parents.
[3] The Note was in the principal amount of $123,000.00. Monthly payments were to be made in the amount of $1000.00, commencing July 1, 2012. Interest would accrue only upon default.
[4] The Note is alleged to be part of the sale of a restaurant business located in Sauble Beach, Ontario – “Lobby’s”. In April 2012, Zeleny bought that business from its then owner, Jeffrey Lobsinger (“Jeff”), brother of Tim and son of David and June.
[5] Years before, Jeff had taken the business over from his parents, David and June.
[6] Three payments were made against the Note in July, August and September 2012, with all of the cheques having been signed by Tim. Nothing has been paid since.
[7] Tim and Zeleny separated in the summer of 2013.
The Issue
[8] Is it a valid and enforceable Note? That is the primary question to be decided.
The Claim
[9] David and June have sued Zeleny for $120,000.00 ($123,000.00 minus the three payments made which totalled $3000.00), plus prejudgment interest at 6% per annum commencing October 1, 2012, the date of default (in accordance with the interest rate indicated on the face of the Note).
[10] The Plaintiffs assert that the Note was part and parcel of the overall purchase of Lobby’s by Zeleny.
[11] According to the Plaintiffs, the total purchase price was $200,000.00, of which $123,000.00 (the Note) comprised the debt owing by Jeff to David and June at the time that Jeff sold the business to Zeleny.
The Defence and Counterclaim
[12] Zeleny admits that she signed the Note but disputes its validity and enforceability, for a variety of reasons.
[13] She submits that the Note had nothing to do with her purchase of Lobby’s. She alleges that she bought the business for $55,000.00. That has been fully paid for.
[14] Zeleny counterclaims for $3000.00 (the total of the three monthly payments made against the Note, which she denies having any knowledge of at the time), plus interest on that sum per the Courts of Justice Act.
The Trial
[15] This was a relatively short trial – heard in Owen Sound over three days, including final submissions by counsel.
[16] I heard from the following witnesses called on behalf of the Plaintiffs: (i) David, (ii) Tim, and (iii) June.
[17] On behalf of the Defendant, I heard from Trudy Simmonds, hereinafter referred to as “Simmonds” (the business’ bookkeeper under Jeff until April 2012 and under Julie since April 2012 up until today), and Zeleny.
II. Analysis
The Amendment Granted to the Plaintiffs’ Claim
[18] Just prior to the close of the Plaintiffs’ case at trial, their counsel asked to amend the Claim to include alternative relief, namely, an order setting aside and declaring as void the April 2012 transfer of the business’ assets from Jeff to Zeleny. It is alleged that the said transfer did not comply with the Bulk Sales Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.14, as amended, to the detriment of the business’ creditors, David and June.
[19] On the basis of that alternative relief, David and June seek a judgment against Zeleny in the amount of $55,000.00.
[20] The amendment was opposed by Zeleny, although her counsel gave no specific reason for that opposition.
[21] The Plaintiffs’ request was granted, and an amended pleading was served and filed. These are the brief reasons for that decision.
[22] The relevant Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 26.01, 26.02 and 26.06, are set out below.
Rule 26 – Amendment of Pleadings
General Power of Court
26.01 - On motion at any stage of an action the court shall grant leave to amend a pleading on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 26.01.
When Amendments May be Made
26.02 - A party may amend the party’s pleading,
(a) without leave, before the close of pleadings, if the amendment does not include or necessitate the addition, deletion or substitution of a party to the action;
(b) on filing the consent of all parties and, where a person is to be added or substituted as a party, the person’s consent; or
(c) with leave of the court. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 26.02.
Amendment at Trial
26.06 - Where a pleading is amended at the trial, and the amendment is made on the face of the record, an order need not be taken out and the pleading as amended need not be filed or served unless the court orders otherwise. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 26.06.
[23] It is well settled that the use of the mandatory language in Rule 26.01, the word “shall”, has reduced the Court’s former discretion to refuse an amendment. Amendments to pleadings, at any stage of the action (including at trial), are presumptively approved: that is the general principle. Unless prejudice would result from the amendment that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment, the granting of the amendment is mandatory.
[24] The amendment granted at trial occasioned absolutely no prejudice to the Defendant. In fact, in his opening statement at trial, counsel for Zeleny referred to the Bulk Sales Act and alluded to at least potential non-compliance with that legislation in this case.
[25] It could not possibly be argued that Zeleny and her counsel were in any way surprised by the issue being raised at trial.
[26] No adjournment was requested by the Defendant, nor was any necessary.
[27] The amendment occasioned no extra time or cost at trial. The Plaintiffs called no additional evidence once the amendment was granted.
[28] Finally, the amendment was not inconsistent with any of the evidence adduced at trial up to that point. It simply provided an alternative basis for some relief for the Plaintiffs in the event that this Court elected not to enforce the Note.
[29] Frankly, I would have granted the amendment even if it had not been requested until after the close of the Plaintiffs’ case.
[30] After the amended Claim was filed, the Defendant delivered an amended pleading as well, followed by the Plaintiffs serving and filing an Amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.
[31] Zeleny’s amended Counterclaim seeks an additional $22,000.00, being the sum paid to the Plaintiffs in July 2012 to compensate them for monies that they had allegedly borrowed on a line of credit and then loaned to Jeff well before the sale to Zeleny.
The Merits of the Plaintiffs’ Claim
[32] With regard to each of the sub-issues discussed below, undue influence, consideration and mistake, counsel agree on the law.
[33] They also agree that the resolution of each sub-issue depends on what facts are found by this Court, which in turn depends largely on an assessment of the credibility and reliability of two very different versions of what happened - that advanced by the Lobsingers and that espoused by Zeleny.
Credibility and Findings of Fact
[34] As Simmonds was not involved with the sale of the business from Jeff to Zeleny and was not present when any of the relevant documents were signed, including the Note, her evidence adds comparatively little to the analysis.
[35] I prefer the evidence of David and June over that of Zeleny. As for Tim, I place very little weight on his testimony.
[36] Zeleny's evidence simply cannot be given any weight.
[37] First, it was replete with serious and material inconsistencies, at times direct contradictions. The following are just two examples of the latter.
[38] In direct examination at trial, Zeleny testified that she talked only to Tim about the purchase of the business before she actually bought it.
[39] That, of course, is a crucial issue because the chances of Zeleny being aware of the fact that she would be assuming the line of credit and Jeff’s indebtedness to his parents are arguably less if she actually never spoke with Jeff or his parents before she bought the business.
[40] At her examination for discovery, however, in direct contradiction to the trial evidence alluded to above, Zeleny clearly stated that the purchase came about in discussions between her and Jeff (page 6 of the transcript). She went on to add that she had frequent conversations with Jeff, Tim, David and June about the purchase of the business (page 7 of the transcript).
[41] It is impossible to reconcile that evidence from Zeleny.
[42] Further, in direct examination at trial, Zeleny testified that the idea of wanting to buy the business originated with Tim, who was always talking about it.
[43] Again, that is an important issue because Zeleny’s position is that she was completely ignorant of certain aspects of the transaction and was pressured in to signing the Note.
[44] At discovery, however, in direct contradiction to that trial testimony, Zeleny stated that she was unaware of Tim having had an interest in purchasing the business (page 25 of the transcript).
[45] Again, that contradictory evidence from Zeleny on a highly material point is impossible to reconcile.
[46] Second, Zeleny testified in a highly unusual manner.
[47] She was highly emotional - crying throughout much of her testimony, even on seemingly innocuous matters.
[48] She presented herself as someone barely capable of living independently, never mind operating a business currently (which she does - the restaurant in question). This despite her college education, her age (mid-thirties), her business background (she owned a tanning salon in Collingwood after she bought the restaurant from Jeff), her work experience as a nurse, and the absence of any evidence that she suffers from mental health difficulties of any sort and/or is on medication that may affect her presentation.
[49] I cannot help but conclude that Zeleny was exaggerating her degree of unsophistication when she testified at trial, likely to bolster her claim that she was unduly influenced and taken advantage of by the Lobsingers.
[50] I do not know whether she was looking to her mother for help in answering questions at trial. Her mother was in the Courtroom and was clearly nodding her head in the affirmative or the negative throughout much of Zeleny’s testimony. When I asked if she was being assisted by her mother, Zeleny replied that she was not. That may be true.
[51] What I am sure of, however, is that Zeleny was tailoring her evidence at trial to some degree in order to paint herself as a complete neophyte when it comes to finances and business.
[52] How could someone own and operate businesses and own and rent out property, as Zeleny has done/still does, when, as examples only, one cannot answer the simplest of questions, such as whether she filed a personal tax return for the year 2015, and cannot understand expressions as basic as "setting aside" an agreement (which of course is exactly what she asks this Court to do regarding the Note)?
[53] If the reader had not been present in the Courtroom during her testimony, it would be difficult to grasp the full extent of the concern.
[54] There were times when Zeleny appeared bordering on incompetent to testify. She would tremble, cry, appear short of breath, present as somewhat disoriented, say things like she did not know what date it was at the time of her testimony, and appear completely frazzled and bewildered at simple attempts to clarify her evidence (such as whether she signed one document in two different places or signed two copies of the same document).
[55] It is not my intention to be disrespectful, rude or just plain mean to Zeleny. I have a duty, however, to explain why I cannot rely upon her evidence.
[56] Perhaps she was just extremely frightened of something or someone or immensely nervous while in the Courtroom, however, I have no evidence that would make either of those conclusions any more likely than that she was being disingenuous.
[57] I recognize that demeanour can be misleading, and for that reason I have not regarded Zeleny's bizarre presentation in the Courtroom as the only or even the most important factor in assessing the overall credibility and reliability of her evidence. It is one factor, however.
[58] Third, some of what Zeleny said in the witness box was so unworthy of belief as to be absurd.
[59] For example, when confronted in cross-examination with the fact that she had stated previously that David moved away from her "chair" at some point during the signing of the Note, even though there were no chairs inside the restaurant at that time, instead of simply admitting to a mistake in language Zeleny pointed to the Exhibit photograph of a typical booth inside the restaurant, with standard bench seats on either side of a table, and alleged that she refers to that type of seat as a "chair". I do not believe that. Nobody would refer to that kind of seat as a “chair”.
[60] As for Tim, I place little to no weight on his evidence as well.
[61] At times, he contradicted himself (whether Zeleny had prepared certain documentation related to the purchase of the restaurant, for example), he displayed generally a poor memory of the events, he often rambled to the point of talking in circles and making me forget what the question was, and he has an obvious self-interest in testifying the way in which he did (because if Zeleny is not on the hook for the Note, he is the only debtor).
[62] David and June, on the other hand, were straightforward and appeared genuine in their evidence. They took no unnecessary jabs at Zeleny but rather described her as having been a treasured part of the family. They admitted when they could not remember something. Their evidence was not tainted by a single material inconsistency. They were responsive to the questions asked.
[63] I believe David and June. I accept their evidence. I do not rely upon the evidence of Zeleny or Tim.
[64] I find the following facts, based on the evidence of David and June.
[65] They discussed with Zeleny, before she bought the business, many times, the prospective purchase. Zeleny was well aware of the fact that Jeff owed a lot of money to David and June, and that the said indebtedness of Jeff to his parents would have to form part of any purchase of the business. She was likewise well aware that she would have to assume the line of credit as part of the overall purchase of the business.
[66] The 55 thousand dollars purchase price was never intended by anyone to be the full amount that would have to be paid by Zeleny. It was for the chattels of the business only.
[67] Well before the signing of the Note, Zeleny knew that she was indebted to David and June as a result of assuming a line of credit and what Jeff still owed to his parents from when he bought the restaurant from them.
[68] There were three components to the purchase – (i) the 55 thousand dollars cash, (ii) the line of credit, and (iii) the money owed by Jeff to David and June (the latter of which was reflected in the Note). Zeleny knew all of that, not just before mid-June 2012 but also before the Bill of Sale was signed in mid-April 2012. And she had seen documents handwritten by David to that effect (Exhibit 7, for example, which clearly sets out the multiple components of the purchase).
[69] There was never any belief by anyone, whether David, June, Tim, Jeff, Zeleny or the lawyer in Sauble Beach (Ms. Jensen), that Zeleny was acquiring an entire business that had been bought twenty years earlier for $175,000.00 for a pittance, less than one-third of that.
[70] It is true that the BDO valuation report filed as Exhibit 1 at trial suggests that the business, in April 2012, was worth no more than what Zeleny actually paid for it, likely less (even as low as $14,000.00), but that is just one piece of evidence on valuation.
[71] It is also a piece of evidence that is seriously hampered by its assumptions. For example, it relied upon the representations of Zeleny [page 5, item (k)]. If those representations suffered from the same weaknesses as her evidence at trial, they are unsafe to have been relied upon. As another example, it is clear that the authors of the report were unaware that, before Zeleny became involved in discussions to buy the business, Jeff had it listed for sale at $300,000.00 and had an interested buyer, arm’s-length, at that price (that was the evidence of June, and I accept that evidence).
[72] June worked at Vince's Pizza (the predecessor business to what became Lobbie’s and later Lobby’s) before it was bought by the Plaintiffs, after it was bought by the Plaintiffs and while it was operated by them, and after they sold it to Jeff and was operated by him. She has always been around that restaurant. She is uniquely situated to speak about how it was doing at various times.
[73] I accept her evidence that it was a better business when they sold it to Jeff and his wife in April 2003 for $200,000.00 than when they bought it in 1992.
[74] I accept the evidence of David that the $200,000.00 sale price to Jeff and his spouse was low because they were family.
[75] Although it is likely true that Jeff was not as good of a business person as his parents were, which probably caused the business to slide some by the Spring of 2012, I doubt that it was worth anything less than $200,000.00, bare minimum, in April of that year.
[76] We also have the Financial Statements that were filed, including those as at the end of Zeleny's first year of operating the business after buying it. It was doing very well just months after it was sold by Jeff – a gross margin of more than $270,000.00, an operating income of more than $24,000.00 and a positive net income (Exhibit 3, tab 22).
[77] On the totality of the evidence, I find it unreasonable that any purchaser on the open market would have paid as little as $200,000.00 for the business in April 2012. It was sold to Zeleny for a discount because she was like family and was in a joint venture and common law relationship with Tim.
[78] As for the Note, I find that it was signed in Owen Sound, at the home of David and June. It was not signed in Sauble Beach at the restaurant, as alleged by Zeleny. David and June were present, along with Tim and Zeleny. The mood was a happy and relaxed one. Nobody was pressuring Zeleny to sign anything. She signed the Note willingly and without any protest or complaint, and without any apparent reluctance or confusion.
[79] About a year later, things fell apart between Zeleny and Tim. Then things soured between the Lobsinger family as a whole and Zeleny, leading to no trespassing notices being served on Tim and his parents.
[80] Then, and only then, did Zeleny begin to attack the validity and enforceability of the Note. To be fair, she was not the only one who changed her tune. David and June became much more serious about collecting what was rightly due to them under the Note.
[81] Litigation ensued. Here we are.
Undue Influence
[82] Undue influence means the improper use of power or trust in a way that deprives a person of free will and substitutes another’s objective – Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief, at page 1666.
[83] There is no dispute that Zeleny signed the Note.
[84] The burden to establish undue influence falls on Zeleny, on a balance of probabilities.
[85] There are situations where there exists a presumption of undue influence. In Geffen v. Goodman Estate, 1991 69 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353, at paragraphs 42 and 43, the Supreme Court of Canada put it this way.
What then must a plaintiff establish in order to trigger a presumption of undue influence? In my view, the inquiry should begin with an examination of the relationship between the parties. The first question to be addressed in all cases is whether the potential for domination inheres in the nature of the relationship itself. This test embraces those relationships which equity has already recognized as giving rise to the presumption, such as solicitor and client, parent and child, and guardian and ward, as well as other relationships of dependency which defy easy categorization.
Having established the requisite type of relationship to support the presumption, the next phase of the inquiry involves an examination of the nature of the transaction. When dealing with commercial transactions, I believe that the plaintiff should be obliged to show, in addition to the required relationship between the parties, that the contract worked unfairness either in the sense that he or she was unduly disadvantaged by it or that the defendant was unduly benefited by it. From the court's point of view this added requirement is justified when dealing with commercial transactions because, as already mentioned, a court of equity, even while tempering the harshness of the common law, must accord some degree of deference to the principle of freedom of contract and the inviolability of bargains. Moreover, it can be assumed in the vast majority of commercial transactions that parties act in pursuance of their own self‑interest. The mere fact, therefore, that the plaintiff seems to be giving more than he is getting is insufficient to trigger the presumption.
[86] The evidence at trial does not establish that there was a relationship of dependency between Zeleny and Tim, between Zeleny and David, and/or between Zeleny and June. In fact, Zeleny has described not much of a relationship at all that she had with David and June.
[87] Even if a relationship of dependency did exist, however, which I do not find, there is no evidence that the Note worked any unfairness in that Zeleny was unduly disadvantaged by it or David and June were unduly benefitted by it.
[88] In fact, the Note was the only way in which Zeleny would have been able to purchase the business. She could come up with only $55,000.00 in cash, with the help of her mother and a credit facility. Further, the Note demanded very low monthly payments ($1000.00) over a long period of time and without any interest whatsoever except in the case of default.
[89] Having found that this is not a case of presumed undue influence, and having regard to the findings of fact outlined above, the conclusion must be that there was no undue influence that taints the Note in any way.
Consideration
[90] This was the issue pressed hardest by counsel for Zeleny in his closing submissions at trial.
[91] Mr. Thomson concedes that there is a presumption of consideration, and it is up to Zeleny to rebut that presumption, on balance. Srinivas v. Panchapakesan, 1996 CarswellOnt 1657 (Gen. Div.), at paragraph 31.
[92] Consideration refers to something bargained for and received by a promisor from a promisee – Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief, at page 347.
[93] Counsel agree that consideration is not required where the contract is a sealed one – The Law of Contracts (Fifth Edition), Professor S.M. Waddams, chapter 5, at page 127.
[94] This Note was sealed.
[95] I prefer not to decide the issue on that basis, however, in light of the fact that nobody seemed to appreciate the significance of the fact that the Note was sealed. Mr. Thomson made that submission at trial, and I agree with it.
[96] I prefer to decide the issue on the basis that there was consideration.
[97] Zeleny’s position is that, because the antecedent debt (the debt that existed before the Note was signed) owing to David and June was the liability of a third party, Jeff, rather than Zeleny herself, the Plaintiffs cannot rely upon that antecedent debt as valuable consideration for the Note. Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber v. Stanwyck, 1987 CarswellOnt 2653 (Dist. Ct.), at paragraph 11.
[98] I disagree with the factual premise of Zeleny’s submission. The antecedent debt was no longer owed by Jeff by the time that the Note was executed – it had already been assumed by Zeleny in April 2012 as part of the overall purchase of the business. That was the agreement between the parties.
[99] The fact that it took some time to have the Note prepared and signed does not extinguish the agreement that had been made, before closing, between everyone involved.
[100] Once the deal closed in mid-April 2012, effectively, the debt owing to David and June was transferred from Jeff to Zeleny. She assumed that obligation. That makes perfect sense as she assumed all of the business’ debts and liabilities at that time. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it too. One cannot buy just the good stuff, the assets, and none of the bad, unless of course the seller, for some reason, agrees to remain on the hook for those debts and liabilities. That was not the deal here.
[101] The valuable consideration extended to Zeleny for her signing the Note was that she did not have to pay off David and June immediately at the time of purchasing the business. She could do it in affordable monthly payments over a lengthy period of time and at no interest unless and until default occurred.
[102] But for the Note, and the consideration for it, Zeleny would never have been able to buy the business.
[103] Reasons are written for the benefit of the parties. There is no need to resort to fancy language like “forbearance from taking action”. Perhaps I should have avoided even the use of “antecedent debt”.
[104] Put plainly, Jeff owed money to David and June. Just before closing, the Plaintiffs could have sued Jeff to collect that money. At closing, that debt became Zeleny’s liability. The Plaintiffs could have then sued her for the money. Instead, they took a Note on very generous terms. That was valuable consideration flowing from David and June to Zeleny.
Mistake
[105] Mistake is defined as an error, misconception or misunderstanding where the parties to the contract did not mean the same thing, or at least one of the parties had an erroneous belief - Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief, at page 1092.
[106] The findings of fact outlined above result in the conclusion that there was no mistake here.
[107] Zeleny had no erroneous belief about the Note or what precipitated the Note in March and April 2012. Everyone involved with the Note (Zeleny, Tim, David and June) meant the same thing: Zeleny had bought the chattels for $55,000.00 and had paid for that (the cheques at Exhibit 3, tabs 8 and 9); she had assumed the line of credit but had not yet paid it off (that was done in July 2012 by way of the cheque at Exhibit 3, tab 24); and the Note was to secure her indebtedness to David and June for what Jeff had owed to them from his purchase of the business years earlier.
[108] Tim signed the Note as well because it was intended to remain a family business and be operated jointly by Zeleny and Tim who were common law partners at the time, even though just Zeleny’s name was registered as the business’ sole proprietor.
Zeleny’s Counterclaim
[109] Zeleny testified that she was totally unaware of the three payments to David and June that were made from the business’ account (the cheques having been signed by Tim) in July, August and September 2012.
[110] I reject that evidence. It makes no common sense that someone who just bought a business would ignore the cheque register and the bank account in the first few months of operation, when cash flow is typically a problem.
[111] Even if I accepted that evidence, however, it would not be a reason to grant the counterclaim regarding the $3000.00. Given my findings of fact pertaining to the Note, that money was owed to David and June. It had to be paid, regardless of whether Zeleny knew about the cheques being signed by Tim.
[112] As for the amended relief claimed by Zeleny, the return of the $22,000.00, that is denied as well. It is impossible that she did not know about such a sizeable payment being made by the business shortly after she bought it. But even if she was unaware of the cheque, she owed that money as part of the overall purchase of the business. It had to be paid.
Issues Raised by the Amendments to the Pleadings
[113] It is unnecessary to address the issues raised in the amended pleadings, specifically those regarding the Bulk Sales Act.
[114] The Judgment in favour of David and June rests on the validity and enforceability of the Note.
III. Conclusion
[115] To summarize, Zeleny signed the Note. There was no undue influence or mistake. There was valuable consideration for it.
[116] I accept the evidence of David that at least $123,000.00 was owed by Jeff to him and June when Jeff sold the business to Zeleny. Besides, by signing the Note, Zeleny agreed to the amount of $123,000.00, and it is not for this Court to go behind that bargain.
[117] The Note went into default on October 1, 2012, after just $3000.00 total had been paid down on the principal, leaving a balance of $120,000.00 owing.
[118] The interest rate upon default is clearly spelled-out on the face of the Note.
[119] Judgment shall issue against Zeleny and in favour of David and June in the principal amount of $120,000.00. Prejudgment interest shall accrue at six per cent (6%) per annum commencing on October 1, 2012.
[120] In neither the original Claim nor the amended one, in the prayer for relief, did the Plaintiffs ask for post-judgment interest. Thus, I am unsure of the rate being sought. That may be addressed by counsel, briefly, in their costs submissions.
[121] The Counterclaim, as amended, is dismissed.
[122] If the parties cannot resolve the issue of costs between themselves, I will accept written submissions. The Plaintiffs shall file within thirty days of the date of these Reasons (limited to two pages, excluding attachments such as offers to settle and dockets). The Defendant shall have fifteen days thereafter to file a response (limited to two pages, excluding attachments). No reply is permitted by the Plaintiffs.
[123] I wish to thank Mr. Treslan and Mr. Thomson for their assistance throughout the trial and for the helpful caselaw filed on both sides.
Conlan J.
Released: November 30, 2016
CITATION: Lobsinger v. Zeleny, 2016 ONSC 7441
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-199
DATE: 20161130
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
David Edward Lobsinger and
June Victoria Fay Lobsinger
Plaintiffs
- and -
Julie Zeleny
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Conlan J.
Released: November 30, 2016