Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-657900 DATE: 202204 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: LUCCAR INVESTMENTS INC., Applicant AND: ILDA DUKAJ and DONNY DUKAJ, Respondents

BEFORE: W.D. Black J.

COUNSEL: Alexi N. Wood, Lillianne Cadieux-Shaw and Laura MacLean, for the Applicant Ilda Dukaj and Donny Dukaj, the Respondents, representing themselves

READ: April 12, 2022

Endorsement

[1] There was a dispute and purported uncertainty about the proper interpretation of aspects of my Endorsement in this matter dated October 15, 2021.

[2] Specifically, the respondents, formerly represented by counsel but apparently with the assistance of a Construction/Project Manager, now representing themselves, have raised questions about: (i) the specific amount payable for rental arrears; (ii) the amount payable for utilities; and (iii) their obligations with respect to the fence in issue in these proceedings.

[3] I will deal with those three issues in turn, by reference to my Endorsement.

[4] The disagreement about the overall rental arrears relates to the choice of the four month period to which the rental abatement applies. The respondents have paid $58,651.13, based in part on selecting two months from the January to June 2021 period, and two months from the July to November 2021 period. The applicant points out that my Endorsement made it clear that the relevant period of rental abatement was in late 2020 to early 2021.

[5] I agree with the applicant’s submission. It is clear from my Endorsement that the period to which I determined the rental abatement would apply was from November 2020 through February 2021. As such, those months are to be used for the calculation and the respondents should pay the additional amount yielded by using those months for the abatement calculation.

[6] The second issue, with respect to utilities, was dealt with in my Endorsement and my Order that the respondents pay the amount of $1,740.83. The respondents are now raising an issue relative to other utilities; neither that issue nor any evidence was before me on the Application. Accordingly, there is no basis to change my decision on this front either and the respondents remain obliged to pay the amount I ordered.

[7] The respondents also raise an issue with respect to the payment I ordered on account of BIA amounts. There was no dispute or competing evidence about this item on the original Application. Again, there is no basis to revise my Order.

[8] Finally, the respondents appear to seek to re-argue the issue with respect to the fence in issue at the property; they purport to submit that “the applicants are in breach of the lease”. This issue was before me on the Application and was thoroughly argued by the respondents’ then counsel.

[9] My decision with respect to the fence also stands. I extend the time within which the respondents are to provide a modified design for the fence until the end of April, 2022. If the respondents fail to do so within that time, they will be in breach of my Order.

[10] I make no further order with respect to costs.

W.D Black J. Date: April 13, 2022