Toth v. Grigorescu, 2016 ONSC 8080

CITATION: Toth v. Grigorescu, 2016 ONSC 8080 COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-48066 DATE: 2016-12-22

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

Doina Toth Applicant

– and –

Sorin Grigorescu Respondent

COUNSEL: Carol Shirtliff-Hinds, for the Applicant Sorin Grigorescu, acting in-person

HEARD: November 28, 29, 30, December 1, 2016

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Gilmore J.:

Overview

[1] This family law trial related to the division of house sale proceeds and the Applicant’s (Ms. Toth) claim for a share of those proceeds greater than her title-holding entitlement. Ms. Toth and the Respondent (Mr. Grigorescu) lived together in a common law relationship for 13 years. In 2002 they bought a new home located at 226 Birkshire Drive in Aurora, Ontario (“the property”) for $269,605.35. After two extensions of the closing date, the home closed on September 8, 2003. Title to the home was registered to the parties as tenants in common; Ms. Toth as to a 25% interest and Mr. Grigorescu as to a 75% interest.

[2] The home was sold on June 2, 2016 for $830,800. $623,477.19 remains in trust after an initial distribution of $30,000 to each party. Ms. Toth claims a 50% interest in the total proceeds. She submits that there was never an intention that her titled share was less than 50% and in any event, her contributions to the property were 50% or more. As such, she is entitled to a 50% share, based on an equitable claim of unjust enrichment.

[3] Mr. Grigorescu claims a division based on the titled ownership. However, as he concedes that Ms. Toth has contributed more than 25% to the property, his alternative position is that she should receive approximately 50% of the equity minus various deductions that he claims. These deductions would result in Ms. Toth receiving approximately 30% of the proceeds.

Background

[4] Ms. Toth described her relationship with Mr. Grigorescu as being volatile and abusive. She testified that the abuse started as far back as 1997 when they first knew one another. Mr. Grigorescu hit her in the face and she called the police. He was arrested. This lead to a break-up until the parties resumed their relationship in 2001.

[5] Unfortunately, the abuse continued. Ms. Toth described an incident in December 2003 when Mr. Grigorescu hit her below her eye so hard she had “floaters.” She saw a specialist about the problem but lied to the specialist about the cause of it.

[6] Another incident occurred in 2013 when Mr. Grigorescu hit her in the rib area. She thought her rib was broken. She went to the hospital but again lied about the cause of the pain. She went to her doctor a few days later because the pain was unbearable. She requested an x-ray. No break or fracture was noted.

[7] The final incident occurred in March 2014. Ms. Toth gave evidence that Mr. Grigorescu hit her in the ribs after an argument. She had to take a week off work. When she went to the hospital she told the medical staff that she had fallen on the ice. She was prescribed heavy pain medication because it was painful to breathe. A co-worker of Ms. Toth’s became concerned about her condition and encouraged her to report it. When she did not, the co-worker reported Ms. Toth’s condition to her husband who was a police officer.

[8] Mr. Grigorescu was arrested and charged with assault on March 14, 2014. His bail conditions did not permit contact with Ms. Toth nor could he return to their home. They have had no contact since. Mr. Grigorescu was discharged from this offence on April 23, 2015 and put on probation. He was subsequently charged with criminal harassment of Ms. Toth and breach of probation. The trial of these matters has not yet taken place.

[9] Ms. Toth was embarrassed about the fact that she did not report many of the incidents to police. Like many victims of physical abuse, she thought it would stop and in some ways wanted to protect her abuser. She seeks a restraining order based on her fear of Mr. Grigorescu. He testified that he no longer wanted contact with Ms. Toth but did not consent to the restraining order.

[10] Ms. Toth gave evidence about the domestic abuse because she wanted to tell the court about the type of relationship she had with Mr. Grigorescu. She was afraid of him. When he demanded she sign certain documents at the lawyer’s office, she did so; even when the Direction Re Title (at Ex 2b, Tab 16) was changed from a 50/50 joint ownership to the 75/25 tenants in common ownership. She felt she had no choice and she trusted her partner.

[11] The parties paid various deposits when the house was purchased in 2002 and again before it closed on September 8, 2003. They also bought furniture and décor items because they were moving from a small apartment to a large home.

[12] Ms. Toth claims she paid the larger share of mortgage payments. She does not dispute that Mr. Grigorescu paid for taxes and half of the utilities. For about five years of the relationship, Mr. Grigorescu was only sporadically employed. Thus, Ms. Toth was forced to pay a larger share. She was stretched financially and resorted to paying for groceries, car repairs and other essentials with credit cards and lines of credit. Mr. Grigorescu denied this and testified that Ms. Toth’s personal spending was out of control.

[13] Mr. Grigorescu testified that he completely renovated the basement including putting in a concrete floor and flooring, roughing in water and sewer to construct a new bathroom, building a cold cellar and installing drywall. The finishes were done with the highest quality materials. A virtual tour of the home prepared for sale shows that the basement was indeed an attractive feature of the home.

[14] Mr. Grigorescu also made some renovations to the kitchen and garage. He testified that he used his own money to pay for most of the materials for these renovations and that they substantially increased the value of the home. He agreed that out of approximately $40,000 in materials purchased, Ms. Toth paid $13,000 and he paid the rest. The renovations were his contribution to the household when he was not working full-time. He also made contributions to the mortgage even when he was not working full-time. Ms. Toth testified that she paid for some of the building materials and that her car was used to transport many of the materials, resulting in extra wear and tear and required repairs on her car. She paid a larger share of grocery and household expense because Mr. Grigorescu simply refused or conveniently avoided such payments.

[15] Mr. Grigorescu also claims occupation rent for the period between March 2014 (when he was forced to leave the home) and May 2016 (the house sold on June 2, 2016). He agrees to share or take full responsibility for certain expenses paid by Ms. Toth to ready the home for showings and sale. Finally, he claims the sum of $9384.04, which represents the sum owing as per paragraph 4 of Jarvis, J.’s consent order dated March 30, 2016. The calculation of this amount is detailed below.

The Deposits and Payments for Upgrades

[16] There was much evidence about the deposits for the property and the payments for upgrades to it. The importance of this issue related to the underpinnings of the parties’ understanding of their respective title holding. Ms. Toth testified that she thought that the Direction Re Title that she signed related only to the 75/25 split that they agreed to for the deposits and upgrades. Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence was that the Direction Re Title for a 75% holding in his favour was to protect his deposit contribution. Further, because they were not a married couple, he said it was appropriate for title to be held as tenants in common.

[17] Ms. Toth testified that she made two deposits on the down payment for the property totaling $10,000. These were in the form of cheques written against her AMEX card account and were therefore paid on credit. Ms. Toth had no personal savings. This $10,000 was not disputed by Mr. Grigorescu.

[18] Ms. Toth testified that she also paid for certain upgrades prior to closing. She paid $7370 by cheque on June 9, 2002, $1587 by cheque on June 5, 2002 and $7583 by cheque on September 30, 2002. Again, all of these amounts were paid from her AMEX card account. Mr. Grigorescu did not dispute the upgrade payment of $1587.

[19] Ms. Toth was challenged on the other upgrade amounts. It was suggested that the two upgrades in the $7000 range were the same upgrades. She disagreed and relied on the fact that separate cheques were written, both of which were produced. In cross-examination, she conceded that in fact she only paid for the upgrades totalling $7538.09. The other cheque for $7370 was never cashed. She produced a copy of her AMEX account, (at Ex 2c), Tab 31d)), which showed an AMEX cheque for $7538.09.

[20] In his evidence in chief, Mr. Grigorescu did not dispute that Ms. Toth paid the $7538.09 for upgrades. However in his cross-examination, he changed his evidence and testified that in fact he paid for this upgrade. Despite the documented proof of payment from Ms. Toth’s AMEX account, Mr. Grigorescu insisted that he paid the $7538.09. His reasons were twofold; first, the cheque was written in his handwriting (although signed by Ms. Toth) and second, the proof of payment was contained in disclosure that he had requested from her but failed to receive because all of his documents were left in the house after he was arrested.

[21] Mr. Grigorescu reminded Ms. Toth that he had given her $20,000 to put in an RRSP. He deposited the same amount and then they both withdrew the $20,000 from their RRSPs and used them for part of their deposit in accordance with the first-time Home Buyers’ Plan. Ms. Toth did not disagree with this, but testified that she is still paying this back annually on her income tax return at the rate of $1333 a year. Therefore, she is effectively repaying this amount and will own a $20,000 RRSP when completely repaid. Mr. Grigorescu conceded he was not an expert in this area and certainly his evidence was confusing on this point. At first, he testified that the $1333 a year was added to Ms. Toth’s income and she only paid tax on it. Later, he testified that once paid back in full, Ms. Toth would have a $20,000 RRSP.

[22] To better understand the financial implications of the “Home Buyers’ Plan” (HBP) on Ms. Toth, the following is relevant. The HBP is a federal program. A homebuyer participating in the program has 15 years to repay the amount withdrawn into their RRSPs. Thus, the minimum annual payment for the parties in this case is $1333 ($20,000/15). If these annual payments were made, the parties would each end the 15 year period with a $20,000 RRSP asset (plus whatever income is earned on the RRSP asset value over the payback period). Unlike normal contributions to an RRSP, these payback amounts are not tax deductible. Any contribution to an RRSP over the minimum repayment is tax deductible as long as the payor designates that the extra contribution is not meant to pay back the HBP withdrawal.

[23] Unfortunately for Ms. Toth, it does not appear that she has been making her minimum payments. If a person does not make their payments, they must include the minimum payment amount as income on line 129 of their tax return. This raises the taxable income for each year the payor does not meet their minimum payments. On her 2014, 2012, and 2011 tax returns, Ms. Toth designated RRSP income of $1333 on line 129. Thus, it seems she has been paying the income tax on the RRSP withdrawal, but will not end the payback period with any RRSP asset.

[24] As a result of the above difference of opinion about the HBP, Ms. Toth claims that she should receive credit for an additional $20,000 towards the deposit. Mr. Grigorescu claims that credit should be his.

[25] Mr. Grigorescu testified that a total of approximately $74,000 was needed to make up the difference between the mortgage ($200,000) and the purchase price ($269,000) plus legal fees and Land Transfer Tax. His evidence was that he contributed $20,000 from Ms. Toth’s RRSP plus another $34,621. This amount can be seen on the Joint Account page at Exhibit 1c), Tab 27 (c), page 1. The $34,621 is made up of the $20,000 from Mr. Grigorescu’s RRSP, his $10,000 deposit and a total of $4621 in legal fees and Land Transfer Tax. He added that he paid $2051 for the stair upgrade. Ms. Toth did not dispute that Mr. Grigorescu paid $20,000 from his RRSP, the legal fees and land transfer tax, a $10,000 deposit and $2051 for upgrades.

[26] Based on all of the above, Mr. Grigorescu’s position was that he paid $64,210.09 in total deposits and upgrades ($40,000 in RRSPs, $10,000 deposit, $4621 legal fees and land transfer tax and $9589.09 in upgrades) and that Ms. Toth paid $11,587 in deposits and upgrades.

[27] Ms. Toth’s position is that she paid a total of $39,125.09. This amount is made up of the $10,000 deposit, the $20,000 RRSP and upgrades totalling $9125.09. She claims that Mr. Grigorescu paid only $36,672: his $20,000 RRSP contribution, the $10,000 deposit and the $2015 stair upgrade.

[28] Before making any findings of fact in this case, mention should be made about my assessment of the parties’ credibility.

[29] Starting with Ms. Toth. Overall, I found Ms. Toth to be a credible witness. She appeared to be distressed and to some extent ashamed of her involvement with Mr. Grigorescu. He clearly dominated her and I accept that he abused her both physically and emotionally. I accept the evidence of her witness, Mr. Nick Staicu, that he and his wife spent significant time with the parties when they were together. They played cards and socialized regularly. Mr. Staicu testified that things were fine between the couple for a few years after they moved into the house in Aurora. Then, Mr. Grigorescu started to act rudely towards Ms. Toth. He would interrupt her and tell her she was stupid and that she should “shut up.” He and his wife left their home a few times because they were so embarrassed by Mr. Grigorescu’s behaviour. Mr. Staicu described these scenes as “unbearable.”

[30] Mr. Staicu testified that he and his wife went over to their house to wish Mr. Grigorescu a happy birthday around March 3, 2014. Ms. Toth was laying on the couch and clearly in pain. Mr. Staicu told the court that Mr. Grigorescu took him aside and told him that he “beat the shit out of her.” Ms. Toth was terrorized and manipulated by Mr. Grigorescu but, for some reason Mr. Staicu could not understand, she stayed with him and put up with his terrible treatment.

[31] I accept Mr. Staicu’s evidence for the following reasons:

(a) He was straightforward and articulate.

(b) He saw the couple together many times.

(c) He was a former friend of Mr. Grigorescu, and had even rented him a room when he was on bail. He had nothing to gain by giving this evidence.

(d) His evidence was borne out by Mr. Grigorescu’s behaviour in court. Mr. Grigorescu had to be constantly admonished by the court to stop interrupting witnesses. When cross-examining Ms. Toth, he rarely let her finish a sentence. When she gave an answer he did not like, he became aggressive and argumentative. When he was being cross-examined, he argued with Ms. Toth’s counsel and often asked questions instead of giving answers. On more than one occasion, he interrupted me when I was attempting to clarify an answer or request that he stop behaving in a certain manner.

[32] Apart from Mr. Staicu’s evidence and his histrionics in the court room, I now turn to the substance of Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence. There were three times when he changed his evidence to the point where the effect was to diminish the overall weight of his evidence. First, his evidence about the upgrade payment of $7538.09. It was indeed odd that during his evidence in chief he conceded that Ms. Toth had made this payment. The following day he made a complete about face and denied that she had made the payment. The fact that he had no proof of this was blamed on Ms. Toth. In his evidence in chief he never mentioned any possibility of the payment having been made by him. The impression left on the court was that Mr. Grigorescu was being petty and intractable in the face of clear evidence that Ms. Toth had paid this amount.

[33] The second area of concern in his evidence was his insistence that over the period of household ownership he paid $130,000 more than Ms. Toth for household expenses. To back up this contention, he prepared a detailed spreadsheet which was basically incomprehensible. He was asked at least three times during the course of his evidence (by both the court and Ms. Toth’s counsel) to explain how he got to this number and why he was relying on it when he had already conceded that Ms. Toth paid half the mortgage throughout. His answers were evasive and at times nonsensical. At one point, he told the court that this amount (the $130,000) included payments for CAA made by Ms. Toth. Later, he said it did not, then he said it did and then he changed his evidence again and said it did not. When asked about certain small withdrawals from the joint mortgage account by Ms. Toth for groceries and cash he insisted that she used these amounts for non-household related expenses because she was not supposed to take money out of that account. Because she did, he counted these amounts against her, regardless of what they were for.

[34] Finally, Ms. Toth testified that in February 2015 Mr. Grigorescu requested he pay her an additional $50 biweekly for her share of car and house insurance. Her evidence was that she paid a total of $1450 for this between February 2015 and February 2016. The payments were made initially by adding $100 onto her regular mortgage payments and then later a further $1350 by way of direct withdrawal from her pay, paid to Mr. Grigorescu’s CIBC account no. ending 2368. Mr. Grigorescu testified that he received only $100 for those payments. It was only when confronted with Ms. Toth’s paystubs showing the direct biweekly deposits to his account that he conceded he had received the additional payments. He then complained that he was unsure, as he did not have copies of his CIBC bank book with which to cross reference the payments. This was Ms. Toth’s fault as he implied she had deliberately not disclosed them to him.

[35] In the end, I found that Mr. Grigorescu lacked credibility and was an unreliable witness. He changed his evidence when it benefitted him, he refused to concede certain points unless cornered and even then was hesitant to admit the obvious. At times, he seemed to change his evidence randomly as if even he was not sure what he meant to say. In addition, he was combative, argumentative and failed to adhere to the court’s requests to refrain from interrupting. Where his evidence conflicts with Ms. Toth’s, I prefer her evidence.

[36] Returning to the issue of the deposit and upgrade contributions, I accept Ms. Toth’s evidence concerning the upgrade payment of $7538.09. Mr. Grigorescu’s protests that his inability to prove that he made the payment was Ms. Toth’s fault were both disingenuous and not in the least believable. I accept that Ms. Toth paid this amount as borne out by the cheque she produced and the corroborating AMEX statement.

[37] With respect to the $20,000 paid to Ms. Toth’s RRSP account, I accept that it was paid from Mr. Grigorescu’s funds. She must now pay it back, and if she does so, she will have a $20,000 RRSP at the end of the payback period. Mr. Grigorescu paid the $20,000 RRSP to Ms. Toth, but will not end up with an RRSP asset at the end. Ms. Toth paid nothing initially, but will also end up with nothing because she has not been making her payments. However, Ms. Toth bears the cost of increased income tax for every year she has failed to make her minimum HBP payments. (In 2013 she did not declare the $1333 in RRSP income, so she did not have to pay inflated income tax. Presumably, this oversight will be corrected, and the $1333 will be attached to her income in a later year.)

[38] Ms. Toth’s cost of increased income tax is much lower than the $20,000 out-of-pocket contribution by Mr. Grigorescu. From 2011 to 2014, Ms. Toth had an average income tax rate of 17.4%: 17.5% in 2011, 16% in 2012, 18.4% in 2013, and 17.7% in 2014. Multiplying that average with the $20,000 approximates Ms. Toth’s total cost of the withdrawal: $3475.73. Thus, Ms. Toth will pay approximately $3500 for the HBP withdrawal from her RRSP account, while Mr. Grigorescu has contributed $20,000.

[39] In my view, it it therefore appropriate to credit Ms. Toth $5000 for the HBP withdrawal – or 20% of a total $20,000 cost. Considering her recent employment promotions, it is likely that her average income tax rate will increase, raising the annual amount she will pay for the withdrawal. She should also be compensated somewhat because Mr. Grigorescu needed her account to withdraw the RRSP funds tax free (assuming the funds he paid into her account were transferred from his RRSP account). However, the real value of her payments per dollar is lower than Mr. Grigorescu’s because hers will be spread out over a decade. Therefore, her contributions should be somewhat discounted.

[40] Therefore, based on the above findings, Mr. Grigorescu contributed $51,672 to the deposits and upgrades ($20,000 for his RRSP, $15,000 for Ms. Toth’s RRSP, $10,000 deposit, $4621 legal fees and Land Transfer Tax and $2051 in upgrades) and Ms. Toth contributed $24,125.09 ($10,000 deposit, $5000 for the RRSP, and $9125.09 for upgrades). Ms. Toth’s contribution is therefore closer to 32% than the 25% insisted upon by Mr. Grigorescu.

The Legal Documents

[41] Ms. Toth testified that she signed an Acknowledgment and Direction dated September 8, 2003. She identified the document as Exhibit 2b, Tab 14. This document clearly shows the parties as joint tenants with a 50% undivided interest. Ms. Toth’s evidence is that this is the manner in which they agreed to hold title. The land transfer tax statement also shows the parties as joint tenants.

[42] However, the registered transfer dated September 8, 2003 shows the parties as tenants in common with a 75% interest to Mr. Grigorescu and a 25% interest to Ms. Toth. The transfer is based on the Direction Re Title, which reflects ownership as per the transfer. However, it is clear that the original typed Direction showed ownership as joint tenants. The word “joint” is crossed out and 25/75 interest is handwritten over the original typing. Ms. Toth testified that the lawyer acting on the sale wrote this and she initialed the changes. She testified that the lawyer never explained the difference between joint tenants and tenants in common. She thought that the handwritten changes related to the division of responsibility with respect to the down payment and upgrades and not how title was to be held. She trusted Mr. Grigorescu and understood that everything was to be held 50/50.

[43] Ms. Toth was educated as a dental assistant. She has been promoted in that industry to the point where she is now an account manager for 11 dental offices in Southern Ontario. She came across as articulate and polite. She agreed that the Direction Re Title does not mention the word “deposit” anywhere. She testified that she was afraid because Mr. Grigorescu threatened that if she did not sign the Direction with the changes, he would leave and simply buy a condominium on his own. Ms. Toth took this threat seriously. She was afraid of Mr. Grigorescu but trusted him to take care of her financial interests.

[44] The lawyer who prepared the sale documents was not called as a witness nor was his sale report produced. Ms. Toth’s counsel submitted this was because Mr. Grigorescu did not dispute that the lawyer made the changes to the Direction Re Title and that the lawyer gave no advice to Ms. Toth about the changes.

[45] The mortgage, title insurance, New Home Warranty, New Housing Rebate Application and the tax bill all show both parties’ names.

[46] Mr. Grigorescu testified that taking title as joint tenants was meant for married people. They were not married. He asked the lawyer to change the title direction to protect his share of the deposit. Ms. Toth knew what the changes meant and initialled them.

[47] Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence was that he had done research on the meaning of joint tenants and tenants in common before he went to sign the sale papers. He knew when he went to the lawyer’s office that he wanted to take title as a tenant in common with a 75% interest. He conceded that he did not share any of this information with Ms. Toth before they went to the law office. He admitted that he was not surprised by her reaction to the changes or that she would have expected to take title equally based on their discussions to that point. He was adamant that he insisted on taking title in this manner to protect his deposit.

Payments for the Mortgage and Other Expenses

[48] Between October 2003 and January 2006, Ms. Toth testified that she was paying $750 biweekly for the mortgage plus car payments of $200 biweekly. Mr. Grigorescu was paying $375 biweekly during this period. Between February 2006 and October 2013, Ms. Toth paid approximately $850 biweekly and Mr. Grigorescu paid approximately $425 biweekly. Despite his promises otherwise, Ms. Toth testified that she paid for the majority of all other expenses such as food and gas. Mr. Grigorescu was paying $200 biweekly because he said he earned less and was periodically unemployed. During this period, the property tax payments were included in the mortgage.

[49] Ms. Toth testified that between the start of the relationship and the refinancing in 2013 she accumulated significant debt on her line of credit and credit cards because she had to use them to make ends meet each month. Her debt had started at about $30,000 from her contributions to the upgrades and the down payment. By 2012, her debt had increased to about $78,000.

[50] Mr. Grigorescu testified that the sole reason Ms. Toth’s debt increased as it did was because was unable to control her spending; it had nothing to do with household expenses. Mr. Grigorescu spent a significant amount of trial time going through Ms. Toth’s credit card statements between 2009 and 2014. He painstakingly showed the court the large number of personal expenditures made by Ms. Toth during that time, including clothing, jewellery, perfume and items for her son – none of which related to contributions to the home. They were all personal expenses that were her responsibility.

[51] Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence was that he and Ms. Toth obtained a joint CIBC line of credit for $78,346.41 in July 2012. He did this to help her with her debt. This line of credit was used to pay off Ms. Toth’s various credit cards and her car loan of $28,000. Ms. Toth disagreed that her car loan was included in the payout. She testified that she retained the car loan and continued to pay it (at $199 biweekly).

[52] After the line of credit was taken out, Ms. Toth made the biweekly payments of $600. Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence was that Ms. Toth was responsible for these payments because it was her debt. The mortgage payment (inclusive of taxes) was split between them. Ms. Toth made the loan payments until November 2013 when the balance of the line of credit (about $64,000 by that point) was combined with the balance of the mortgage and refinanced. After refinancing, the property taxes were no longer included with the mortgage. According to Mr. Grigorescu, Ms. Toth then began paying $1000 biweekly for her share of the loan and the mortgage. Meanwhile, he paid $800 biweekly; $400 for the mortgage and $400 for their insurance plans (car and home) and property tax. According to Mr. Grigorescu, Ms. Toth was paying more than him because she agreed to pay $1200 a month towards her debt and $800 a month towards the mortgage.

[53] During this period the parties also opened a joint line of credit with TD. That line of credit is at its limit of $21,000. Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence was that he did not take any money from this line of credit. He insists it should be fully repaid by Ms. Toth. Ms. Toth did not dispute that the line of credit was used for her personal expenditures.

[54] In September 2014, Ms. Toth complained she could no longer make the payments of $1000 biweekly. Thereafter, from September to December 2014, Ms. Toth paid $700 biweekly and Mr. Grigorescu biweekly paid $500 plus $200 for the insurances and realty taxes.

[55] In January 2015, Ms. Toth paid $750 biweekly and Mr. Grigorescu paid $400 biweekly.

[56] Ms. Toth continued to struggle financially and Mr. Grigorescu lost his job. In February 2015, the mortgage was re-amortized over 28 years and the mortgage payments were reduced to $215 biweekly. Mr. Grigorescu contributed nothing to the mortgage between February 2015 and the sale in June 2016. Instead, he paid $200 per month for insurance and $400 per month for property taxes. Mr. Grigorescu stopped paying the property taxes in November 2015 and Ms. Toth did not pay the mortgage or water bill for the two months prior to sale. These outstanding amounts were all paid out on the sale.

[57] Mr. Grigorescu spent much time trying to rationalize and explain why he claimed to have paid $130,000 more than Ms. Toth over the period of the home ownership. What can best be gleaned from his submissions is that his calculations included his disproportional contribution to the deposits, payments for materials for the basement renovation and the alleged overpayments he made in the two years prior to sale as Ms. Toth was no longer paying a larger share of the mortgage. However, in the end Mr. Grigorescu conceded that Ms. Toth paid half of the mortgage, food and utilities. The areas of contention were the deposit (dealt with above) and Ms. Toth’s accumulated debt.

[58] Mr. Grigorescu insisted that Ms. Toth accumulated this debt because of her spending habits. He testified that when they started living together she already had $47,000 in debt that she had never disclosed to him. She would never show him her credit card statements. Based on the numbers in her own sworn financial statement, her personal debt increased following separation from $13,000 in March 2014 to $86,000 in November 2016.

[59] Ms. Toth disagreed. She testified that her spending was related to the household and included groceries, gifts for Mr. Grigorescu’s family and for him, clothing she required for work, pet food and supplies, car repairs and gas. I prefer Ms. Toth’s evidence on these points. Mr. Grigorescu’s painfully long review of her credit card statements from 2009 to 2014 did not convince me otherwise.

[60] Mr. Grigorescu complained that Ms. Toth’s car repairs were expensive because she did not go to the mechanic he instructed her to go to. He complained that she spent money on restaurants and extravagances that she simply couldn’t afford. He complained about how much money she spent on their dog while at the same time testifying that he loved and missed the dog and had offered Ms. Toth $1000 for it. Ms. Toth refused this offer.

[61] With respect, I disagree with Mr. Grigorescu’s view of Ms. Toth’s spending habits. Having reviewed hundreds of Ms. Toth’s credit card statements at Mr. Grigorescu’s insistence, I find that the great majority of charges relate to household expenses. Any other expenses, such as restaurants or jewellery, were modest and far from extravagant.

[62] It should be kept in mind as well that Mr. Grigorescu’s relatives lived with the couple for a total of two years. Ms. Toth was clearly a patient and tolerant woman to have such long-term guests in her home. Such long-term stays would necessarily involve increased expenses (it is conceded that some of these were paid by Mr. Grigorescu). There was also uncontradicted evidence that this couple enjoyed hosting large parties particularly for Christmas and New Year’s Eve. The food and alcohol charges on Ms. Toth’s cards were consistent with such social events.

[63] In summary, I find that Mr. Grigorescu’s claim that Ms. Toth’s debt was solely hers to assume is not borne out. He agreed to refinance the debt with the mortgage for which they were both responsible. That fact should probably end the debate. However, if there is any doubt about my conclusion, I find as well that Mr. Grigorescu took advantage of Ms. Toth’s generous nature. While he was accumulating savings, he was content to have her pay for household necessities. I infer that he very well knew that she had to pay for such items on credit.

[64] Therefore, I find that Ms. Toth paid her share and more to keep this household running. For about five years of the relationship, Mr. Grigorescu was only sporadically employed. While I accept that he depleted his savings during this period so that he could continue to pay his agreed upon share of the mortgage, I doubt he could have paid the entire mortgage without Ms. Toth’s assistance. That is, the significant equity that was accumulated in the property over 11 years could not have happened without Ms. Toth. In the end, her share of the proceeds should not be reduced in any way as a result of any refinanced debt.

The Basement Renovation

[65] Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence was that he completely finished their basement during the five years in which he was sporadically unemployed. A total of $43,000 was spent in materials. Only the highest quality materials were used, including exotic West African wood for the bar. He conceded that Ms. Toth paid $13,000 of the $43,000 in materials.

[66] Using a contractor’s estimate and internet research, he estimated the cost of his own labour at $60,000. He testified that he bought books on home renovation and learned how to do many things himself. He is a perfectionist and would spend hours to ensure everything task was completed properly.

[67] The basement was a definite selling feature of the property and there was no dispute about this by Ms. Toth. It was Mr. Grigorescu’s firm view that Ms. Toth should pay him $50,000 for her share of the labour and materials for the basement.

[68] There was no expert evidence from Mr. Grigorescu as to the actual value of the renovation or the value of the home before and after the renovation. Ms. Toth’s counsel submitted that his calculations were skewed as he used professional contractor’s rates for labour when he had no equivalent experience. In any event, Ms. Toth’s position is that this was a joint family venture and the value of the basement cannot be treated separately given the parties’ intentions and contributions.

Occupation Rent

[69] Mr. Grigorescu claims occupation rent of $30,755 for the period when he was not living at the home, from March 2014 to May 2016. During this period, Ms. Toth solely occupied the home. Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence was that he made rental payments of $15,000 during this period. Some of the rent was paid in cash. He produced cheques for the balance.

[70] During this period, Mr. Grigorescu continued to make contributions to the property. From March 2014 until August 2014, he paid $400 biweekly. He testified that this represented his share of the mortgage as well as the property taxes and insurance for the house and both cars. Starting in September 2014, he increased his payments to $700 biweekly plus $200 per month for insurance. That contribution continued until February 2015, when the mortgage was re-amortized. At that point, Ms. Toth paid the biweekly mortgage of $215. Mr. Grigorescu paid $400 a month in property taxes and $200 a month for insurance. He stopped paying property taxes in November 2015.

[71] Mr. Grigorescu referred to a letter dated October 27, 2016 from Mr. Jim Parthenis of Lebow Carrington Appraisal. He estimated the rental value of the property at $1825 per month for 2014, excluding utilities. In 2015 the rental value would have been $1854 per month and $1891 per month in 2016.

[72] Mr. Parthenis did not view the interior of the property but relied on photographs prepared for the sale. He was not called as a witness. Mr. Grigorescu was warned that the appraisal could only be given limited weight if Ms. Toth was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Parthenis.

Costs to Prepare the Home for Sale

[73] Ms. Toth testified that she paid certain amounts to ready the home for showing and sale. Mr. Grigorescu was not living in the home at the time and made no contribution towards these costs. She seeks reimbursement for the total. Initially Mr. Grigorescu resisted paying any portion of these costs. During his cross-examination he agreed to reimburse Ms. Toth as follows:

Expense Amount Grigorescu Toth

Carpet Cleaning $452 $226 $226

Blue Line Moving $781.26 $781.26

Rent Source $374.60 $374.60

Home Depot $334.30 $167.15 $167.15

Cash for repairs $350 $175 $175

Total $1724.01 $568.15

Personal Property

[74] Each of the parties bought certain items of furniture and décor for the home during the relationship. As they were not married, a consent court order dated March 30, 2016 required that such items be divided according to ownership. This was done, but Mr. Grigorescu complained that Ms. Toth wrongfully removed items belonging to him. These included certain paintings in the dining room, the “Cuban” paintings, a framed tarantula spider, sea horses for framing, certain photos and albums and some cassette tapes.

[75] Exhibit 5 is a colour coded list showing all personal property items. Ms. Toth was entitled to take all of the pink highlighted items on the list. She testified that she only took those items. These included the various paintings. As for the other items, the sea horses were broken and were discarded, the tarantula could not be found and the other items could either not be found or were left for Mr. Grigorescu and he did not take them.

[76] It is difficult for the court to intervene with respect to personal property items at this point. The parties agreed to a certain division and there was a consent court order to that effect. Where items have gone missing, the court cannot conjure them up. Mr. Grigorescu was visibly upset at what he clearly perceived as the wrongful disposal of his property by Ms. Toth. Such is one of many tragic consequences of the breakdown of a long-term relationship. Certain things (material and otherwise) are lost which simply cannot be recovered.

The March 30, 2016 Order

[77] Paragraph 4 of the March 2016 consent order states as follows: “The Applicant shall pay the difference of the 1% commission for the real estate agent’s fees plus the HST on the 1%.” The order was made on consent. The provision arose because Mr. Grigorescu did not agree to the real estate agent chosen by Ms. Toth (who charged more commission than his choice of agent). There was therefore an agreement that he be paid the 1% difference in commission between the two agents plus HST.

[78] As the sale price was $830,800, 1% would be $8308. Adding in HST would make a total of $9388.04. This amount is owed to Mr. Grigorescu pursuant to the terms of the March 2016 order.

The Restraining Order

[79] Ms. Toth sought a restraining order as part of her relief. I granted that order effective December 1, 2016. Some reasons were given, as required, in Schedule A of the printed form, however, I indicated that I would provide additional reasons in this judgment.

[80] Ms. Toth confirmed during her evidence that she remains afraid of Mr. Grigorescu. She is fearful of his angry outbursts and controlling personality. She was clearly upset about the fact that she will be called to testify as the complainant in the upcoming criminal harassment trial.

[81] Having accepted Mr. Staicu’s evidence and preferring Ms. Toth’s evidence over that of Mr. Grigorescu, I find that Ms. Toth lived in an abusive relationship. I do not make any finding with respect to the extent of that abuse or its effect on Ms. Toth because those considerations are corollary issues to this trial. However, the evidence was more than sufficient to satisfy the requirements under s. 46 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. Namely, I am satisfied that Ms. Toth has reasonable grounds to fear for her safety with respect to Mr. Grigorescu. The restraining order is to be a permanent one to ensure that its provisions continue after the expiry of any probation order to which Mr. Grigorescu may be subject.

Legal Analysis and Factual Conclusions

[82] Ms. Toth seeks an equal division of the sale proceeds based on the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment. She submits that it is clear from the evidence that the parties had a common intention that the property would be shared 50/50, including the ongoing payments, maintenance and improvements to the property.

[83] Ms. Toth submits she signed the Direction Re Title under duress without any forewarning of the Mr. Grigorescu’s intentions to change the title to tenants in common or a 75/25 interest in his favour. Ms. Toth did not understand the legal terms. She trusted her partner but feared him at the same time. She was frightened when faced with his ultimatum that she sign the Direction Re Title or he would leave and buy a property on his own.

[84] Finally, Ms. Toth submits that her contributions were equal to or greater than those of Mr. Grigorescu. At trial, Mr. Grigorescu agreed that Ms. Toth should have a 50% share of the proceeds but only after deducting $30,000 for her debt, $50,000 for his contribution to the basement renovation, the difference between their respective contributions to the down payment and upgrades ($48,000 on his numbers) and $30,755 for occupation rent. He also seeks his entitlement of $9,383.04, based on the March 30, 2016 order as outlined above.

[85] Counsel for Ms. Toth submits that her client signed the Direction Re Title under duress. She refers to Ludmer v. Ludmer, 2013 ONSC 784, 33 R.F.L. (7th) 331, at para. 53. However, in order to prove duress, Ms. Toth must be able to demonstrate that she signed the Direction Re Title out of some fear of actual or threatened harm. Apart from the fact that duress was not pleaded in her Application, Ms. Toth did not demonstrate any of these essential elements of duress. She gave evidence that she was confused and upset and that she was fearful of her partner. However, that fear was an ongoing intimidation related to the nature of their relationship. There was no specific fear or threat of harm that was demonstrated in the circumstances of signing at the lawyer’s office.

[86] I therefore reject the claim that Ms. Toth signed the Direction Re Title under duress. She was likely naïve, uninformed and overly trusting of Mr. Grigorescu, but that is insufficient to prove the elements of duress.

[87] Ms. Toth submits that her claim lies in unjust enrichment. I agree that the principles in Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269 apply. In that case, the court dealt with the principle that “for unmarried persons in most common law provinces, judge-made law is the only option for addressing the property consequences of the breakdown of those relationships,” (at p. 271). In order to meet the test for unjust enrichment from Kerr, Ms. Toth must be able to prove that Mr. Grigorescu was enriched by her contributions, that she has suffered a corresponding deprivation and that there is no juristic reason for the enrichment (at para. 3).

[88] In my view, the hurdle is not a difficult one for Ms. Toth to get over in this case. First, her own evidence of contributions was that she contributed more than 50% to the ongoing expenses of the property. Correspondingly, Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence was that she contributed “more or less” 50% of the expenses.

[89] However, the respondent’s concession that Ms. Toth contributed to 50% of the expenses is not in itself sufficient to displace the title-holding. Per Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 269, at paras. 58, 60, the finding of a joint family venture is significant only in determining the quantum of a monetary remedy. For a proprietary remedy displacing the title-holding, the claimant must (a) demonstrate that a monetary award is inappropriate or insufficient, and (b) prove the existence of a constructive trust over the property (at paras. 50-53). A constructive trust is proven when the claimant can demonstrate a “‘sufficiently substantial and direct’ link, a ‘causal connection’ or a ‘nexus’” between the claimant’s “contributions and the acquisition, preservation, maintenance or improvement of the disputed property,” (at paras. 50-51). The Ontario Court of Appeal has reaffirmed this test relatively recently: see Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14, 118 O.R. (3d) 522, at para. 48; and Clarke v. Johnson, 2014 ONCA 237, 318 O.A.C. 186, at para. 7.

[90] In my view a constructive trust interest displacing the title-holding is clearly appropriate on the facts of this case. Mr. Grigorescu has insufficient savings to compensate Ms. Toth through a monetary award, and he conceded that she made significant contributions to the acquisition and maintenance of the property. If Mr. Grigorescu agrees that Ms. Toth should notionally have a 50% interest in the proceeds, what is preventing that result? It is Mr. Grigorescu’s claims for certain deductions from that amount, which I shall deal with in turn.

Ms. Toth’s Debt

[91] At trial, Mr. Grigorescu conceded that he was prepared to accept a reduction of Ms. Toth’s share by $30,000 for her debt. This was somewhat surprising given the amount of time he spent during his evidence dealing with the refinancing of the debt and her alleged spending habits. However, as I concluded above, I do not believe that any part of Ms. Toth’s share should be reduced by the refinanced debt for two reasons:

(a) Mr. Grigorescu agreed to pay out Ms. Toth’s debt first with a joint line of credit and subsequently with a mortgage in both names. Based on the banking documents required for such loans, Mr. Grigorescu assumed liability in the event of Ms. Toth’s default.

(b) I was not persuaded that the debt was from anything other than joint household-related expenses, as detailed above.

The Down Payment and Upgrades

[92] Based on my findings in this judgment, Ms. Toth’s total contributions to the deposits and upgrades was in the range of 32%. Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence was that splitting the title holding 75/25 was meant to protect his contributions to the deposits and upgrades. Ms. Toth did not disagree with the concept. However, she did not understand that the Direction Re Title went beyond simply reiterating what the parties’ contributions were to the deposits and upgrades.

[93] As both parties agree that Mr. Grigorescu was to have contributed 75% to the deposits and upgrades and Ms. Toth 25% - should she now be required to pay Mr. Grigorescu the amount he seeks when she in fact contributed over 30% to the deposits and upgrades based on my findings? Certainly not. I therefore decline to award Mr. Grigorescu any amounts he claims in this regard. Ms. Toth contributed more than her agreed upon share to the deposits and upgrades and she should not have to pay more.

The Basement Renovation

[94] Mr. Grigorescu’s evidence was that he worked on the basement renovations for about five years, starting in 2007. He paid $43,000 for materials and spent hundreds of labour hours. No one can dispute that the finished product was both unique and of high quality.

[95] Mr. Grigorescu seeks $50,000 in compensation from Ms. Toth based on a straight split of what he calculated to be the cost of labour and materials to complete the project. There are several problems with this argument which can be broken down as follows:

(a) Mr. Grigorescu provided no expert evidence on the factor by which the value of the home was increased by this renovation.

(b) Mr. Grigorescu provided no independent expert evidence on the labour rate on any basis; i.e. by square foot, by experience, etc.

(c) Mr. Grigorescu was only sporadically employed during this period. After earning $77,000 in 2005 and $70,000 in 2006, he was laid off and received Employment Income totalling $28,000 in 2007. He earned $22,000 in 2008, $16,791 in 2009, $29,907 in 2010, $15,375 in 2011 and $13,205 in 2012. Mr. Grigorescu continued to pay his share of the mortgage as well as approximately $30,000 for materials for the basement. He depleted his savings in order to do so.

[96] Ms. Toth had no savings to deplete. She continued to work long hours and accumulate debt to pay for household expenses during the time Mr. Grigorescu was sporadically employed. I find that without her ongoing contribution, the parties could not have continued to accumulate equity in the property in the amount they did.

[97] As per Kerr v. Baranow, at pp. 274-275, “To determine whether the parties have, in fact, been engaged in a joint family venture, the particular circumstances of each particular relationship must be taken into account. This is a question of fact and must be assessed by having regard to all of the relevant circumstances, including factors relating to mutual effort, economic integration, actual intent and priority of family.”

[98] This is a clear case of a joint family venture. Both parties worked hard at maintaining and improving the most important asset they had - the subject property. Ms. Toth worked long hours and spent her entire salary on the mortgage and household expenses. She was unable to save anything and in fact went into debt to meet these expenses. Mr. Grigorescu had savings but depleted them entirely to pay for the mortgage and the basement while he was not working. He testified that the parties’ goal was to have the mortgage paid off by 2017. They were well on their way to doing so when the events of March 2014 pushed things off track.

[99] As per Kerr v. Baranow, at p. 275, the case at bar is one in which “the parties have formed a true partnership and jointly worked towards important mutual goals.” It is therefore clear that if the sale proceeds were distributed on a 75/25 basis, Mr. Grigorescu would be enriched and Ms. Toth thereby deprived. Even on his own evidence, Mr. Grigorescu agreed with this. Should the value of the finished basement tip the scales based on these facts? Not at all. Mr. Grigorescu could have engaged in leisure activities or done nothing at all during this time. Instead, he engaged in a project which would mutually benefit the couples’ enjoyment of their home. Ms. Toth supported this and both parties made financial sacrifices to allow it to happen.

[100] On the issue of “juristic reason”, Mr. Grigorescu has never taken the position that the parties’ shares should be divided as per their titled interests. At trial he conceded that Ms. Toth was entitled to a 50% share but with certain deductions. None of those deductions have been found to be reasonable or acceptable by this court. The only juristic reason for denying Ms. Toth’s claim for unjust enrichment would have been if Mr. Grigorescu had strictly insisted on receiving his 75% share. Even he realized that this did not reflect the financial reality of his partnership with Ms. Toth.

[101] Therefore, given the parties’ mutual intentions and the lack of expert evidence on how to quantify the value of such an improvement, I find that there should be no deduction from Ms. Toth’s share for the basement renovation.

Occupation Rent

[102] Occupational rent is a claim that is often made by a non-occupying spouse who is deprived of the use of the family home and incurs expenses to live elsewhere.

[103] In Higgins v. Higgins, 2001 CanLII 28223 (ON SC), at para. 53, Quinn J. surveyed the case law and summarized a number of principles that are relevant in considering the appropriateness of an occupation rent order. As these parties did not have children, and given that there is no claim for spousal support, the following principles from Higgins are relevant:

(a) When was the demand for occupational rent made?

(b) Did the non-occupying spouse suffer financial difficulty as a result of having to rent elsewhere?

(c) What were the circumstances under which the non-occupying spouse left the home?

(d) Who was paying for the expenses for the home?

(e) Did the occupying spouse increase or decrease the selling price of the home?

(f) Did the non-occupying spouse move for the sale of the home?

(g) Are there other competing claims in the litigation that may offset any award of occupation rent?

[104] Mr. Grigorescu was forced to leave the home on March 14, 2014 when he was charged with assaulting Ms. Toth. He now claims occupation rent of $30,755. It is unclear exactly what this number is based on but it appears to represent the $15,000 in rent he actually paid plus an additional amount based on the market rent set out in Mr. Parthenis’ report.

[105] Dealing first with the date the claim was made, Mr. Grigorescu’s Answer was dated May, 2015. He has not made a claim for retroactive occupation rent to March 2014. Therefore, any claim he may have is restricted to the period of May 2015 to May 2016, or a period of 13 months.

[106] The circumstances under which Mr. Grigorescu was removed from the home were the subject of much evidence at trial. I accept Ms. Toth and Mr. Staicu’s evidence that Mr. Grigorescu assaulted Ms. Toth which resulted in his arrest. It appears he was discharged from the offence. While it is not for this court to make findings with respect to the seriousness of the assault or the actual circumstances of it, the fact remains that Mr. Grigorescu was required to leave the home as a result of his own actions. While that is not the only consideration to be made with respect to occupation rent, it is certainly one which cannot be ignored.

[107] In Wawzonek v. Page, 2015 ONSC 4374, 63 R.F.L. (7th) 317; the parties separated following the common law husband’s arrest for assault. It was alleged that he kicked and punched his common law wife. The husband entered into a peace bond and the criminal charges were dropped. Nonetheless, the assault factored into Pazaratz J.’s reasoning for denying occupation rent (at para. 233).

[108] It is often the case where a spouse is removed or leaves the home that the non-occupying spouse moves for the sale of the home. This is usually because the non-occupying spouse seeks to obtain their equity in the home and use it to move forward with their life. However, in the case at bar it was the occupying spouse, Ms. Toth, who moved for the sale of the home. Mr. Grigorescu did not want to sell the home. He was very attached to it and told the court in great detail about the amount of hours he had spent on the renovations. I infer, therefore, that it was not by Ms. Toth’s doing that she spent over two years in the home after Mr. Grigorescu left. She sought the sale of the home as early as April 2015 (the date of her Application).

[109] There was no evidence Mr. Grigorescu suffered financial difficulty as a result of the sale of the home. Mr. Grigorescu did not give any significant information about his financial circumstances from 2014 to 2016.

[110] As for his contributions to the home, Mr. Grigorescu contributed to the mortgage and taxes until February 2015. At that point his contribution changed to just the property taxes ($400 per month) and insurance for the house and cars at $200 per month. He stopped paying the property taxes in November 2015. Ms. Toth was solely paying the mortgage ($215 biweekly) from February 2015.

[111] Occupation rent applies only to the expenses related directly to the home. These would therefore be the mortgage, taxes and insurance. As Mr. Grigorescu is not entitled to claim for any period up to May 2015, his total contributions would be the taxes from May to November ($400 x 7 = $2800) and house insurance from May 2015 to May 2016 ($70 x 13 = $910) for a total of $3710.

[112] There is no evidence that Ms. Toth’s mortgage payments increased the equity in the home during this period as there was no mortgage statement provided.

[113] As indicated above, Mr. Parthenis was not called to testify regarding his report on the market rental rate for the property. I am therefore unable to give any weight to his report.

[114] Finally, it was Ms. Toth who readied the home for showings and sale. Although Mr. Grigorescu agreed to share some of these expenses and solely assume others, this does not take into account the time and effort that Ms. Toth was required to put in to ensure the property sold for the best price. Ms. Toth detailed at trial that Mr. Grigorescu left behind many items for which she was obliged to arrange disposal.

[115] In all of the circumstances, Mr. Grigorescu’s claim for occupation rent is dismissed for the following reasons:

(a) There is no evidence that Ms. Toth’s payments towards the mortgage increased the equity in the home;

(b) Mr. Grigorescu resisted the sale of the home;

(c) Mr. Grigorescu was forced to leave the home because of his own actions;

(d) there is no evidence that Mr. Grigorescu suffered any financial hardship during the relevant period of May 2015 to May 2016;

(e) Mr. Grigorescu was paying some of the expenses but realistically only a nominal amount; and

(f) there is no reliable evidence concerning the market rent for the property.

Final Orders

[116] Based on all of the above, I make the following orders:

(a) The remaining proceeds from the sale of the property shall be divided evenly save and except as follows:

i. Ms. Toth shall pay to Mr. Grigorescu from her share of the sale proceeds the sum of $9388.04 as per the March 30, 2016 consent order.

ii. Mr. Grigorescu shall pay to Ms. Toth from his share of sale proceeds the sum of $1724.01, being the amount which Mr. Grigorescu agreed to reimburse Ms. Toth for payments she made to ready the home for showings and sale.

iii. Ms. Toth shall pay out the joint TD line of credit from her share of sale proceeds, discharge same and provide proof the closure of that account to Mr. Grigorescu. To be clear, the discharge amount is to be paid directly by the lawyer holding the funds to TD Bank on Ms. Toth’s direction.

(b) Mr. Grigorescu’s claims for deductions from Ms. Toth’s share are dismissed; specifically his claims for the differential in the deposits and upgrades, the basement renovation and her alleged debt.

(c) Ms. Toth’s claim for a restraining order is granted for the reasons given.

(d) The sum of $50,000 shall be held back from Mr. Grigorescu’s share of sale proceeds pending my order as to costs.

[117] The parties shall provide written costs submissions of no more than two pages in length exclusive of any Bill of Costs or Offer to Settle. The costs submissions shall be sent by email attachment to my assistant Robyn Pope at robyn.pope@ontario.ca. Ms. Toth’s costs submissions are due 7 days from the date of the release of this judgment, Mr. Grigorescu’s response 7 days after that, and any reply by Ms. Toth 7 days after that.

Madam Justice C.A. Gilmore

Released: December 22, 2016