Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00003022 (Stratford)
DATE: 20220630
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Denis Grigoras, also known as Sebastian Denis Dejan Grigoras, and Augustinus Holdings Inc.
Plaintiffs
– and –
Lia Aurora Grigoras
Defendant
COUNSEL:
Denis Grigoras, acting in person
Jeffrey A. Kaufman and Bradley Adams, for the Defendant
HEARD: April 12, 2022
REASONS ON MOTION
CAREY J.
[1] The defendant, Lia Aurora Grigoras (“Lia”), wishes to have the plaintiff, Denis Grigoris’ (“Denis”), action against his mother stayed pending the resolution of litigation in Toronto against companies that the plaintiff says have no assets and are bankrupt. He says he should know as he did legal work for the family company.
[2] There is a stark contrast between the positions of the two parties. Counsel for the defendant, Lia, chastises the plaintiff, her son, a lawyer and former employee of the defendant husband’s company, essentially as ungrateful, greedy and someone who would sue his own mother. The plaintiff, Denis, on the other hand casts his role as a former insider, whistleblower, exposing asset hiding on the part of a bankrupt organization. He says rather than the transfers being in good faith from one loving spouse to another, they are part of a scheme to defraud creditors and himself between parties who have been separated for some time.
Analysis
[3] Even if the companies are not bankrupt, I am not convinced that staying this action is in the best interests of justice. If the family companies are in fact bankrupt and the plaintiff does not wish to pursue them, why should this court stay this litigation in favour of the Toronto litigation? It may be in the best interests of the company and it could very well be a stalling tactic. On the other hand, if the transfers to Lia were made to defeat creditors, including Denis, then there has been irregularity, and likely illegality, that should not be rewarded by a stay.
[4] The idea that there is something instinctively repellant about a child suing a parent does not appear to find much favour in either estate or corporate litigation. The stark reality is that family companies crack and divide into family squabbles on a regular enough basis to keep the courts and the business pages full. It is not just the stuff of fictional television drama like Succession. The Rogers family, amongst others, have seen their rivalries and disputes played out on the national news stage.
[5] I find this motion, on the balance of probabilities, to be strategic on the part of the defendant. There is no logical connection between the staying of this action and the litigation in Toronto other than defeating the plaintiff’s attempts to expose what he describes as a scheme to defraud creditors. On the face of it, he seems to have a strong case. There is no explanation put forward for the reason that millions of dollars were recently transferred to the allegedly estranged spouse of the operating mind of the companies in Toronto.
[6] Accordingly, the motion to stay is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff, Denis Grigoras. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they can exchange bills of costs and submissions within 30 days. Such submissions are not to be more than four pages, double spaced.
“original signed and released by Carey J.”
Thomas J. Carey
Justice
Released: June 30, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00003022 (Stratford)
DATE: 20220630
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Denis Grigoras, also known as Sebastian Denis Dejan Grigoras, and Augustinus Holdings Inc.
Plaintiffs
– and –
Lia Aurora Grigoras
Defendant
REASONS ON MOTION
Carey J.
Released: June 30, 2022