Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-25580 DATE: 20180622 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Grasshopper Solar Corp. Plaintiff – and – Loubert Bouzi and Marie Robillard Defendants

Counsel: Radoslav Nikolov, Pradeep Chand and Murray Snider, for the Plaintiff Loubert Bouzi and Marie Robillard, no one appearing

HEARD: March 13, 2018

Reasons for Judgment

Carey J. :

[1] The plaintiff brought a motion for a default judgment on March 13, 2018. Grasshopper Solar Corp. (“GSC”) seeks $44,992.53 in damages due to the failure of the defendants to complete the registration process to fully effect the assignment of a solar energy lease.

[2] GSC claims that the Solar Lease Agreement (the “Agreement”) was originally executed with Ms. Jennifer Butcher and Ms. Mary Joan Baynton.

[3] The Agreement provided that the homeowners of a property on Hemlock Road, in Windsor, would have solar panels installed on the house generating solar photovoltaic electricity. The electricity would be fed into the microFIT program of independent energy generation and a local distribution company (“LDC”) would pay a fixed price to GSC for the energy. The homeowners would then be paid a gross annual rent as “landlords” by GSC as a “tenant.”

[4] While the plaintiff’s pleadings claim there was an assignment by Ms. Butcher and Ms. Baynton to Joseph Lauzon, there is no evidence of same, yet Mr. Lauzon assigned the lease to the defendants Loubert Bouzi and Marie Robillard. That claim is made only in the Notice of Motion. That notice of assignment does not speak to whether Mr. Lauzon was aware of, or had ever taken on, an assignment of the Solar Lease Agreement: see Exhibit B to the Statement of Claim.

[5] While Exhibit C to the motion purports to be proof of this assignment, the assignment is not signed by Mr. Lauzon and does not serve as proof of there ever having been a valid assignment from Ms. Butcher and Ms. Baynton to Mr. Lauzon when the house was sold.

[6] In my view, Mr. Lauzon’s failure to sign the assignment invalidates it as a contract that fails to meet the Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 19. The rule that a claim is deemed true in the absence of a filing of a reply does not permit the court to enter judgment where the evidence contradicts that claim.

[7] Pursuant to r. 19.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, given the lack of clarity in the evidence, the motion for default judgment is dismissed.

Original signed by “ Carey J. ” Thomas J. Carey Justice Released: June 22, 2018

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Grasshopper Solar Corp. Plaintiff – and – Loubert Bouzi and Marie Robillard Defendants REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Carey J. Released: June 22, 2018