Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 28802/21 DATE: 2023/02/23 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
TANYIA LYNN ST. ONGE Applicant – and – ANDREA OLENDY Respondent
Counsel: Meggie M.E. Opala, for the Applicant Self-Represented
HEARD: December 2, 2022, and February 23, 2023
BEFORE: Rasaiah J.
REASONS ON APPLICATION
Overview
1The applicant makes application for the following,
(a) An order for vacant possession ordering the respondent, Andrea Olendy and her son, Preston Olendy to vacate the subject property forthwith;
(b) A writ of possession to enable the local sheriff to attend the subject property and escort the respondent, Andrea Olendy and her son, Preston Olendy off the subject property;
(c) Legal costs incurred by the applicant for bringing the within application be payable on a fixed rate of $2,000.00 to be paid out of the respondent’s share of the estate;
(d) Costs thrown away to be fixed on a full indemnity basis to obtain vacant possession and for the damages to the property because of the refusal to vacate; and
(e) Such further and other relief as counsel may request and this Honourable Court may deem to be just and appropriate.
2The applicant relies on:
(a) The last will and testament of Sandra Olendy;
(b) Section 60(1) of the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23;
(c) Rule 14.05(3)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194; and
(d) Affidavit of Tanyia Lynn St. Onge, sworn on November 24, 2021, and exhibits attached thereto.
3Service of the application is in order. Confirmation and service of same of the hearing is in order.
4On December 2, 2022, the respondent attended. The matter was adjourned to today’s date for continuation.
5The respondent did not attend court today, February 23, 2023.
6Mr William Scott attended on behalf of Mr. Deresti who was seeking to be added as a party.
Discussion/Analysis
7Rule 14.05(3)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 states,
(3) A proceeding may be brought by application where these rules authorize the commencement of a proceeding by application or where the relief claimed is,
(a) the opinion, advice, or direction of the court on a question affecting the rights of a person in respect of the administration of the estate of a deceased person or the execution of a trust;
8Section 60(1) of the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. T.23 states,
60 (1) A trustee, guardian or personal representative may, without the institution of an action, apply to the Superior Court of Justice for the opinion, advice, or direction of the court on any question respecting the management or administration of the trust property or the assets of a ward or a testator or intestate. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23, s. 60 (1) ; 2000, c. 26 , Sched. A, s. 15 (2).
9Rule 57.01(1) to (5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 state the following,
57.01 (1) In exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 to award costs, the court may consider, in addition to the result in the proceeding and any offer to settle or to contribute made in writing,
(0.a) the principle of indemnity, including, where applicable, the experience of the lawyer for the party entitled to the costs as well as the rates charged, and the hours spent by that lawyer;
(0.b) the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed;
(a) the amount claimed, and the amount recovered in the proceeding;
(b) the apportionment of liability;
(c) the complexity of the proceeding;
(d) the importance of the issues;
(e) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;
(f) whether any step in the proceeding was,
(i) improper, vexatious, or unnecessary, or
(ii) taken through negligence, mistake, or excessive caution;
(g) a party’s denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted;
(h) whether it is appropriate to award any costs or more than one set of costs where a party,
(i) commenced separate proceedings for claims that should have been made in one proceeding, or
(ii) in defending a proceeding separated unnecessarily from another party in the same interest or defended by a different lawyer;
(h.1) whether a party unreasonably objected to proceeding by telephone conference or video conference under rule 1.08; and
(i) any other matter relevant to the question of costs. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 57.01 (1) ; O. Reg. 627/98, s. 6; O. Reg. 42/05, s. 4 (1); O. Reg. 575/07, s. 1; O. Reg. 689/20, s. 37.
Costs Against Successful Party
(2) The fact that a party is successful in a proceeding or a step in a proceeding does not prevent the court from awarding costs against the party in a proper case. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 57.01 (2) .
Fixing Costs: Tariffs
(3) When the court awards costs, it shall fix them in accordance with subrule (1) and the Tariffs. O. Reg. 284/01, s. 15 (1).
Assessment in Exceptional Cases
(3.1) Despite subrule (3), in an exceptional case the court may refer costs for assessment under Rule 58. O. Reg. 284/01, s. 15 (1).
Authority of Court
(4) Nothing in this rule or rules 57.02 to 57.07 affects the authority of the court under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43,
(a) to award or refuse costs in respect of a particular issue or part of a proceeding;
(b) to award a percentage of assessed costs or award assessed costs up to or from a particular stage of a proceeding;
(c) to award all or part of the costs on a substantial indemnity basis;
(d) to award costs in an amount that represents full indemnity; or
(e) to award costs to a party acting in person. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 57.01 (4) ; O. Reg. 284/01, s. 15 (2); O. Reg. 42/05, s. 4 (2); O. Reg. 8/07, s. 3.
Bill of Costs
(5) After a trial, the hearing of a motion that disposes of a proceeding or the hearing of an application, a party who is awarded costs shall serve a bill of costs (Form 57A) on the other parties and shall file it, with proof of service. O. Reg. 284/01, s. 15 (3).
10The affidavit of the applicant provides the following,
1 . The deceased died on or about January 28, 2021, testate. A copy of the funeral director’s statement of death is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “A”.
2 . In the last will and testament of the deceased, the applicant was appointed as the estate trustee. A copy of the last will and testament of Sandra Olendy is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “B”.
3 . The applicant obtained a certificate of appointment of estate Trustee with a will on June 7, 2021, a copy of which is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “C”.
4 . The deceased was married to Peter Olendy who died on or about November 12, 2014.
5 . The deceased was a widow when she died.
6 . The deceased and her late husband owned a house located at 352 Second Avenue, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario (hereinafter referred to as “the property”) as joint tenants.
7 . When Peter Olendy died, the deceased became sole registered owner of the property by right of survivorship.
8 . The said property is the only real property in the estate.
9 . In the last will and testament of the deceased, the residue of the estate was left to the applicant’s brother, Adam Phillips, the applicant’s sister (the respondent), Andrea Olendy, and to the applicant, in equal shares per stirpes.
10 . In the last will and testament of the deceased, there is no specific clause pertaining to the property itself. The applicant was advised by her solicitor, Meggie M.E. Opala that the property would fall into the residue of the estate and the applicant believed this to be true.
11 . The applicant was advised by her solicitor, Meggie M.E. Opala that as the estate trustee of the deceased, it is the applicant’s responsibility to distribute the estate in accordance with the last will and testament, and the applicant believes this to be true.
12 . After obtaining the certificate of appointment of estate trustee with a will, the property was transferred to the applicant in her capacity as estate trustee with a will by Instrument AL230016 and as the personal representative of the deceased. A copy of which is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “D”.
13 . As the registered owner of the property, the applicant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale dated November 11, 2021, as vendor, to sell the property with a closing date of December 22, 2021, a copy of which is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “E”.
14 . From the date of the deceased’s death, the applicant’s sister, Andrea Olendy, who is 42 years old and her son, Preston Olendy, who is 25 years old, had been residing at the property [until their recent move the court was advised of].
15 . The respondent and her son had been residing at the property while the deceased was still alive and were paying the deceased a fee of $800 per month.
16 . Since the death of the deceased, the respondent made payments but did not pay the full $800 per month to the estate. To the date of the affidavit, the respondent had paid a sum of $5,000.
17 . The applicant made several attempts to ask the respondent to vacate the property as she and her son were not entitled to reside there, and it was essential that the property be sold to pay debts and to administer the estate.
18 . On or about February 24, 2021, the applicant set up an appointment to have a local realtor attend the property to obtain a letter of opinion with regards to the value of the property. The respondent refused to have the realtor attend the property.
19 . Following the above noted incident, the applicant contacted the Landlord Tenant Board who advised her that the matter did not fall under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 as the respondent was considered a boarder and not a tenant.
20 . On March 3, 2021, the applicant sent a notice by way of mail to the respondent at the property. A copy is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “F”.
21 . On or about March 15, 2021, the respondent changed the locks on the property and gave the applicant a copy of the keys.
22 . On or about May 7, 2021, the respondent consented to the realtor attending the property to obtain a letter of opinion.
23 . Following such consent, the applicant confirmed an appointment with the realtor to attend the property which was scheduled for June 24, 2021. The respondent denied access to such attendance.
24 . On or about June 22, 2021, the applicant contacted the Sault Ste. Marie Housing Enforcement Unit, through the Landlord Tenant Board, who verbally advised the applicant that the respondent was not considered a tenant and cannot legally deny me access to the property or possession of the property.
25 . On or about June 23, 2021, the applicant contacted the respondent to advise her of such information and confirmed that the applicant would be sending her another notice. The respondent then responded by saying “bring it on”. A copy of the messages is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “G”.
26 . On or about June 23, 2021, the applicant sent the respondent another notice to vacate the premises by July 31, 2021. A copy is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “H”.
27 . On or about July 6, 2021, the applicant contacted the respondent to advise that a realtor would need to attend the property. The respondent advised the applicant that no one would be viewing the property. A copy of the messages is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “I”.
28 . On or about July 31, 2021, the applicant attended the property and was made aware that the locks had been changed a second time. The applicant then called the Sault Ste. Marie Police Services to attend the property.
29 . On or about July 31, 2021, the Sault Ste. Marie Police Services attended the property to communicate with the respondent and to obtain the keys and mail addressed to the estate of the deceased but were not successful.
30 . On or about August 6, 2021, the applicant filed an A1 Form with the Landlord Tenant Board. The applicant was later advised again that the matter did not fall under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17. A copy of the said form is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “J”.
31 . On or about September 2, 2021, the respondent left the mail and a bank draft in the amount of $1,000 in the mailbox at the property.
32 . On or about September 16, 2021, the respondent contacted the applicant with regards to a letter sent from Sault Ste. Marie PUC services, advising her of a water leak on the property. PUC services advised that the said water leak had to be repaired by October 8, 2021.
33 . On or about September 23, 2021, the applicant advised the respondent that she wished to sell the property as there was not enough money to pay for the water leak. The respondent advised the applicant that she was an owner under the will of the deceased and that no one could enter followed by a message telling the applicant to bring her and her son to court. A copy of said messages are attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “K”.
34 . On or about October 7, 2021, the utilities for the property were shut off to prevent the water from leaking onto the city sidewalk and the neighbouring property.
35 . On or about October 9, 2021, the applicant received a phone call from the Sault Ste. Marie Police Services advising her that a disturbance occurred between the respondent and the neighbours.
36 . On October 16, 2021, the applicant attended the property in hopes of discussing the matter with the respondent who ran out of the house and attempted to damage the applicant’s vehicle by throwing a flowerpot and hitting the passenger window and windshield with her fist.
37 . On or about October 19, 2021, the applicant was advised by William McPhee, a lawyer at Peterson & Peterson that the applicant needed to turn the utilities for the house back on. The applicant explained the situation and was advised that only the power needed to be turned back on.
38 . On or about October 28, 2021, the applicant attended the law office of Peterson & Peterson and filled out an N12-Notice which the applicant then delivered to the respondent. A copy of said notice is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “L”.
39 . The applicant advised the law office of Peterson & Peterson that the N12 could not be used in any Landlord-Tenant proceedings, but it does constitute a further legal notice to the respondent to vacate the property.
40 . On or about November 9, 2021, the applicant sent a message to the respondent in respect to acknowledging the notice to vacate. The applicant also confirmed that she would be bringing a court application to deal with this matter. The respondent did not respond to the messages. A copy of the messages is attached to the affidavit as Exhibit “M”.
41 . There was some urgency in obtaining vacant possession and selling the property. The house was in poor physical shape as it needs a new roof and substantial renovations.
42 . There was a serious water leak situation, and the applicant was forced to turn off the water to the property. The respondent refused to let PUC services or a plumber in to fix the water leak, so the property was without water services.
43 . Given the fact that the property was decreasing in value, the applicant was forced to sell as soon as possible at a lower sale price and on an “as is-where is” basis.
44 . No purchaser would buy this property with the respondent barricaded in the house the applicant felt. The applicant was asking for leave for short service of the application because the respondent was given several notices to vacate and was told to leave the property for the last six (6) months.
11The respondent has not filed any evidence to the contradict the said deposed information. However, on December 2, 2022, at the hearing, the respondent advised the court that she and her son have moved out and vacated the premises. She had been looking for a new residence for herself and her autistic son. She was not expecting that she would be put out of the home. She has not been well. The issue raised by the respondent was that she disagreed with the sale proceeding as is based on what she described as a “scam” with the purchaser and/or being offensive. The house is worth more.
12It was noted by the court on December 1, 2022, that the purchase and sale agreement details were not provided, nor an appraisal of the subject property. As such, the court ordered that the purchase and sale agreement be filed along with an appraisal, and that the hearing be adjourned for continuation on another date based on the comment of the respondent and the fact that the Trustee was trying to get an appraisal.
13The court further ordered a delay of 30 days in setting the continuation to provide one last opportunity for the respondent to retain counsel if she chose to do so and/or file responding documents or any other claims if she was making same. The respondent was expressing her belief that her parents wanted her to have more than what she would be left with if the applicant sold the house based on the offer to purchase in place. She suggested the applicant was involved in a scam with the neighbour.
14For the February 23, 2023, continuation, the applicant filed a letter regarding court dated February 6, 2023, advising of today’s court date sent via email to the respondent on February 6, 2023, at 3:22 p.m. The letter also enclosed a copy of the agreement of purchase and sale along with amendments and extensions for the transaction, and a copy of an appraisal for the property dated December 21, 2022. A further affidavit was also filed providing an update as to what has happened since December 1, 2022.
15Regarding the purchase and sale, the record establishes that the last extension on the purchase and sale agreement is noted as February 28, 2023. The transaction has been extended multiple times since on or about December 15, 2021. The purchase price agreed on is $65,000.
[16] On December 11, 2022, the further affidavit filed indicates that: a. the applicant attended the property; changed the locks; and cleaned the interior of the property stated to have been left in a disorderly fashion. b. On December 15, 2022, the applicant was contacted by police concerning an incident that occurred at the property on this date. She was advised that the respondent broke into the premises causing extensive damage to both the interior and exterior. Police had been contacted by the neighbour who resides next door to the property. The respondent was reported as screaming at him while hitting and damaging the fence on the subject property. c. As a result of being contacted by the police, the applicant attended the property. She observed doors, a glass cabinet, ceiling fan, faucet had been smashed. Doors to the house and garage had been left open. Garbage had been thrown throughout the backyard of the property. The respondent wrote on the living room wall in her own blood, “I pay the heat”. A copy of the police report was filed.
17On December 21, 2022, the property was appraised by Drew Butkovich CRA, P. App. The property is appraised as at that date for $84,000.
18The matter of requesting the appraisal was something that the Trustee wished to obtain, and the respondent wished to have. That has been accomplished.
19This application is not asking for direction on the disposition and there is no counter-application before the court regarding same in any way.
20It is within the Trustee’s discretion to dispose of the property by the will according to her legal obligations and to do so in accordance with those obligations. The Trustee, if she chooses to dispose of the property in accordance with the agreement to purchase is the choice of the Trustee. I make no comments on that because same is not the subject of this proceeding. I further decline to make the proposed purchaser a party to this application for this reason, this application does not deal with the sale of the property. If for any reason, the sale does not go through, the purchaser will have remedies available to him he may pursue. It makes no sense or is of any utility to add the purchaser to this application.
21I will comment however that I accept on the record before me that there have been costs of this application, and money likely will have to be spent to remedy the damages caused by the respondent and put it back in the condition it was at the time the purchase and sale agreement was entered into. I further comment however that, it would be wise for the Trustee to obtain estimates for the work in my respectful view. An affidavit of the purchaser’s counsel with no supporting documents attached in my respectful view is insufficient in satisfying herself in respect of her duties and obligations with respect to disposal of the property.
[22] I make the above comments based on the affidavit of William R. Scott filed on behalf of Paul Randall Deresti sworn February 17, 2023, which sets out that. a. The property needs substantial repairs, the water main into the property had ruptured almost 18 months ago. It also had prior roof leaks and internal water damage. Comment: no documents were attached to substantiate this extent of damage. b. Mr. Deresti was advised that the locks were changed by Tanyia St. Onge, the estate trustee to preserve the property. Mr. Deresti received a call from his tenant in the adjoining property that some woman outside the Olendy home had smashed the garage door in and had smashed the glass in the back door of the house and was inside smashing things. Mr. Deresti immediately drove to the property to see what was going on. Mr. Deresti discovered that the respondent was the one who was inside smashing things in the house. He parked in the driveway next door. When the respondent saw him, she came over with a hammer in her hand, and started smashing the fence between the properties, then came to Mr. Deresti’s car and was moving the hammer in a threatening manner and was threatening him and cursing at him. Mr. Deresti backed out of the driveway quickly and called the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service to report this incident. c. Mr. Deresti did get an opportunity to review and inspect the home and the garage with Tanyia St. Onge. He observed the damage that was done to the garage door and to the inside of the home. He also saw that the interior of the home was in very poor condition. The entire inside of the home including the floors, walls and ceilings would have to be replaced. The evidence of the water leaks and damage to the walls and ceilings gave Mr. Deresti some concerns that there would be mold in the home. The respondent had also thrown a bunch of garbage and other items out of the garage and strewn them all over the backyard. Mr. Deresti cleaned up all the refuse. d. Deresti reviewed this appraisal report and has some serious concerns with the findings or information contained therein, and the conclusion that the property value in its present state is worth $84,000, namely: i. The property is described as a fully serviced home. There is no mention of the fact that the watermain in the front yard has broken or ruptured. The front yard will have to be dug up and the water lines to the home replaced. This will cost several thousands of dollars. Comment: no documents were attached to substantiate this extent of damage. ii. There is no mention that the roof of this homes needs to be replaced. The cost of the replacement of this roof would probably be about $3,000 to $3,500. Comment: no documents were attached to substantiate this extent of damage. iii. The appraisal report refers to some damages in the home. These damages are far more serious than indicated in the appraisal report. Comment: no documents were attached to substantiate this extent of damage. iv. The appraiser does not indicate that he inspected property #1 at 635 Schafer Avenue to see if it has the damages and deficiencies that exist in the Olendy home. If that comparable has the same poor conditions and damages as Second Avenue, that $85,000 value would have to be substantially reduced. Comment: no further comments have been solicited from the appraiser. v. If you were to average the first two properties, the one inferior and one superior, the average value of those two properties would be $72,450. Mr. Deresti would accept that as a value of his home and once you take off 5% for real estate commission of $3,722.50, plus HST of $483.92, and pay to repair the water line and add selling costs and any remedial work or improvements to be done before closing, the actual sale value of 352 Second Avenue to the state would be substantially less than $65,000 offered by Mr. Deresti. Comment: no further comments have been solicited from the appraiser. Comment: Neither Mr. Deresti nor Mr. Scott are experts.
23Accordingly on the application that is before me in its current form, I am satisfied that some order for direction should issue to avoid further attendances at the home by the respondent. The record before me and the position/actions/relationship of the parties establishes that direction is required in respect of the administration of the estate.
24I am satisfied that the record establishes the applicant as the appointed estate trustee, that the property in question, namely 353 Second Avenue, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, (“the Property”) was owned by the deceased at her death and forms part of the estate. There is no specific devise relating to the property in the will. As such, it falls into the residue of the estate.
25I am satisfied that the will provides that the residue is to be divided in equal shares amongst Adam Phillips, the applicant, and the respondent. The respondent thus is a one-third beneficiary of the residue of the estate.
26I am satisfied that the record fails to establish the respondent and/or her son were tenants to which the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 would have applied. The applicant and her son were boarders.
27There is no established right of the respondent presented on this record to the property itself. No claims have been filed by the respondent.
28The property is currently registered to the applicant in her capacity as estate trustee.
29The applicant’s responsibility is to administer the estate in accordance with the will and the record supports that the property is required to be sold to pay debts and administer the estate, that the property is in a state of disrepair and the respondent is resisting the sale of the subject property and attending the subject property even after she had vacated same.
30Prior to bringing the within application, the applicant made several attempts to ask the respondent to vacate the property and/or address the sale of the property with the respondent. There have been ongoing issues, even after the respondent and her son vacated the property that necessitated police involvement.
31Sufficient notice had been given to all who resided there, namely the respondent and her son, starting March 3, 2021, and more than once, as set out above. The text messages filed support that the respondent had been aware of the desire to sell the property and the requests for vacant possession. She confirmed same December 2, 2022, explaining to the court that it was difficult to find a new residence for herself and her son, and that she had been ill. She further advised the court that she did not expect that she was going to be put out of the home.
32Despite the above explanation, I find it is fair to conclude that the respondent continuously resisted the efforts of the applicant to take steps to dispose of the property, including but not limited to interfering with valuation of the property, changing the locks on more than one occasion, disregarding serious maintenance issues concerning the property, becoming violent, stating to the applicant to bring the matter to court, advising the applicant that she herself was going to bring an application to the Court, which she has not done, and post vacating the property, the respondent has attended the property and is alleged to have caused damage to the property.
33I recognize when I write these reasons that at the last court date, the respondent raised the issue of wanting an appraisal and same had not been provided to the court, and neither had been the purchase and sale documents. However, regarding the appraisal, it was not for lack of trying on the part of the applicant that one was not available given the occupation of the residence by the respondent at the time these efforts were made and the respondent’s refusals to cooperate.
34The property I am satisfied at the very least on the record filed needed maintenance (for clarity: extent unknown) which was being neglected and/or that she refused to allow the applicant to address same, and further, that the property could not be disposed of with the respondent refusing to vacate.
35The delay in dealing with the property and actions of the respondent has potentially (potentially meaning for clarity: this is not my finding as fact that the value is $65,000 without invoices or estimates as to work required, and further, I was not asked to decide this issue and my ruling is not to be interpreted as binding findings on the condition of the property, the extent of repair it requires, and/or its value) put the applicant in the position of selling the home at a lower price based on a decline in the market and the property’s current condition, part of which was further affected by the actions of the respondent post vacating the property as set out above.
36The rights of the other residual beneficiaries of the estate are being affected as administration of the estate has been delayed and the property was not being maintained in appropriate condition and/or has been further damaged by the respondent.
37The record establishes that the relationship between the parties and resistance of the respondent to the sale and/or to properly maintain the property have impeded the applicant as estate trustee in accordance with the will and her duties to administer the estate. The respondent has taken actions that further have affected the condition of the property.
38On the issue of costs, I find that the respondent ought to have cooperated in the sale of the property and does not have and/or has not presented a right, title or interest to the property that entitles her and/or her son to remain in the home and/or to prevent the sale.
39However, the applicant presented a bill of costs that far exceeded the claim made in the application without notice to the respondent. The respondent only has personal service of a notice of application claiming $2,000.
40If the applicant wishes to amend her application and serve the respondent with an amended application for an increased amount of costs, I will permit that.
41Counsel will have to advise the court of same in writing to my attention via the Trial Coordinator as to whether the applicant wishes to do so or otherwise seek a ruling on the $2,000 claimed.
42The applicant did not submit costs thrown away to obtain vacant possession. The respondent eventually left on her own. The applicant did not submit a claim for damages to the property because of refusal to vacate.
Conclusion
[43] Accordingly: a. THIS COURT ORDERS that Andrea Olendy and Preston Olendy provide vacant possession of the property municipally described as 352 Second Avenue, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario (“subject property”) to the applicant estate trustee forthwith. b. THIS COURT ORDERS that a writ of possession shall issue to enable the local Sheriff to attend the subject property to escort Andrea Olendy and Preston Olendy from the subject property as and when she attempts to reattend the subject property. c. THIS COURT ORDERS the issue of costs is adjourned to the trial coordinator to receive the position of the applicant based on my written reasons for this order. d. The balance of the application is otherwise dismissed without prejudice to the applicant with respect to the claims for costs to obtain vacant possession and/or damages to the property because of the respondent’s refusal to vacate the property
Rasaiah J.
Released: February 23, 2023
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: TANYIA LYNN ST. ONGE - and – ANDREA OLENDY REASONS ON APPLICATION Rasaiah J. Released: February 23, 2023