COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-00675882-0000
DATE: 20231114
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
LY INNOVATIVE GROUP INC. and MEIZHANG ZHOU
Plaintiffs
- and –
FACILITATE SETTLEMENT CORPORATION, KAI WU and JANE DOE
Defendants
Spencer F. Toole and Alexander Etkin for the Plaintiffs
Stefan Juzkiw and Andro George for the Defendants
HEARD: November 14, 2023
PERELL, J.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is a landlord and tenant dispute. It arises because save for three months of prepaid rent, for three years, the monthly rent of $9,500 has not been paid while the tenant has remained in possession. The rent arrears now approach $300,000.
[2] The Defendant Facilitate Settlement Corporation is the tenant of leased residential premises in Toronto. There is a dispute about whether the Defendants Kai Wu and Jane Doe are also tenants.
[3] In January 2022, the Plaintiffs, Ly Innovative Group Inc. and Meizhang Zhou sued for possession and for payment of the arrears of rent. They noted Facilitate Settlement Corp. and Mr. Wu in default, and the Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment.
[4] The Plaintiffs, however, omitted to note in default Jane Doe, which is not the correct name of Ms. Wu’s wife.
[5] The Defendants including Jane Doe resisted the motion for a default judgment, and they moved for an Order setting aside the noting of default.
[6] On November 18, 2022, when there was a case management scheduling conference. Justice Akbarali set a timetable scheduling the motions to be heard today.
[7] I was advised this morning that the parties had reached a settlement. I was asked to grant the following Order:
ORDER
THIS MOTION made by the Plaintiffs, Ly Innovative Group Inc. and Meizhang Zhou, for, inter alia, judgment in accordance with the Statement of Claim was heard this day at Toronto, Ontario.
ON READING the Consent of the parties, the Statement of Claim in this action, the Affidavit of Jing Tang sworn August 19, 2022, the Supplementary Affidavit of Alexander Etkin sworn September 22, 2022, the Further Supplementary Affidavit of Alexander Etkin sworn November 3, 2023, the Transcript of the Cross-Examination for Mehdi Raza held on November 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs’ Factum and the Plaintiffs’ Responding Supplementary Factum, and the proofs of service of the Statement of Claim on Facilitate Settlement Corporation, Kai Wu and Jane Doe, the Affidavit of Mehdi Raza sworn October 27, 2023, the Factum of the Defendants, filed, and Facilitate Settlement Corporation, Kai Wu and Jane Doe having been noted in default,
THIS COURT ORDERS that the tenancy between the Landlord and the Defendants is terminated. The Defendants must move out of the rental unit that is municipally known as 29 Citation Drive, Toronto, Ontario M2K 1S5 (the “Rental Unit”) on or before the 17th day of November 2023 (the “Termination Date”).
THIS COURT ORDERS that, if the Rental Unit is not vacated on or before the Termination Date, then starting on November 18, 2023 (the “Enforcement Date”), the Landlord may file this Order and the Writ of Possession described in paragraph 4 below with the Court Enforcement Office (Sheriff) so that the eviction may be enforced.
THIS COURT DECLARES AND ORDERS that the Landlords are entitled to possession of the Rental Unit as of November 17, 2023.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Landlords are granted leave to issue a writ of possession for the Rental Unit municipally known as 29 Citation Drive, Toronto, Ontario M2K 1S5 and legally described as PARCEL 12342, SECTION EY LOT 199, PLAN 66M676, LOT 199 ON PL M676; SUBJ TO EASE IN FAVOUR OF THE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADA OVER THE REAR 4' AS IN LT585458. PL BA1614 (PL D611) CONFIRMS PT OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS LAND; SEE A817837 SUBJECT TO LT585458 TWP OF YORK/NORTH YORK, CITY OF TORONTO to be enforced on an immediate and expedited basis.
Upon completion of the terms of the settlement, the Plaintiffs will obtain an order dismissing the action against the Defendants on consent of the Parties on a without costs basis.
[8] I am not prepared to issue this Order. The preamble mistakenly indicates that Jane Doe has been noted in default, which is not the case. Further, as noted above, Jane Doe has not been properly identified.
[9] I have not been provided with sufficient details of the settlement to exercise my discretion with respect to issuing a writ of possession. The Order does not address the outstanding counterclaim of at least Jane Doe. The Order does not finally resolve the matter.
[10] In these circumstances, at the hearing of the motions, I gave the parties a choice of either: (a) arguing the motion on its merits; or (b) adjourning the motion until Monday next at which time it could be determined whether the Plaintiffs actually needed a writ of possession.
[11] The parties elected to adjourn the motion. In the meantime, I repeated my direction to the Defendants to properly identify Jane Doe.
[12] I remain seized of this matter. It is adjourned to Monday, November 20, 2023. It shall be a virtual hearing. On Monday, the parties shall report and be prepared to argue the motion on its merits if the matter has not properly resolved itself in the interim.
[13] Adjournment accordingly.
Perell, J.
Released: November 14, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-00675882-0000
DATE: 20231114
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
LY INNOVATIVE GROUP INC. and MEIZHANG ZHOU
Plaintiffs
- and –
FACILITATE SETTLEMENT CORPORATION, KAI WU and JANE DOE
Defendants
ENDORSEMENT
PERELL J.
Released: November 14, 2023