Ontario (AG) v. 269 Weldrick Road West (in rem), 2020 ONSC 4657

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-437010 DATE: 20200731 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Attorney General of Ontario, Applicant AND: 269 Weldrick Road West, Richmond Hill (PIN: 03152 – 0007 LT); $220,000.00 in Canadian Currency; $300,000 in gift cards; Black Lexus S43 (2007) Coupe; Black Lexus GX7 (2005) SUV; Silver Lexus Coupe; Four Winns 238 Vista Boat; Boat Trailer; and other property (IN REM), Respondents

BEFORE: Sanfilippo J.

COUNSEL: Sandra Di Ciano and Kateryna Toderishena, for the Applicant George Alatopulos, for the interested party, Halyna Borylo

IN WRITING: July 31, 2020

SUPPLEMENTARY ENDORSEMENT

[1] On July 29, 2020, I issued my endorsement in the motion brought in writing by the Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”) for an order approving the settlement of this Application on the basis of section 18.1 of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 28: Ontario (Attorney General) v. 269 Weldrick Road West (in rem), 2020 ONSC 4605.

[2] On July 30, 2020, the lawyers for Ontario wrote that on review of the factum that they filed in this motion in writing, they “became concerned that paragraph 40 of our factum does not make it clear that the Divisional Court decision in Ontario (Attorney General v. $29,900) [2017 ONSC 2003, 137 O.R. (3d) 221] was decided before the coming into force of s. 18.1 of the Civil Remedies Act. s. 18.1 was enacted by the Legislature to address the concerns expressed by the Court in that case as to any statutory limitation to approve settlements under the CRA.”

[3] They are correct. This submission is not contained in Ontario’s factum.

[4] This submission might have affected the analysis set out in my reasons but does not change my decision to grant the relief sought on this motion.

Sanfilippo J.

Date: July 31, 2020