Himes v. Chukwu, 2023 ONSC 7099

COURT FILE NO.: FS-17-0105-002

DATE: 2023-12-15

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Niemi Himes, Applicant (responding party)

v.

Kingsley Chukwu, Respondent (moving party)

HEARD: December 14, 2023

BEFORE: Fitzpatrick J.

COUNSEL: Self-Represented, Applicant

Self-Represented, Respondent

ENDORSEMENT ON MOTION

1Mr. Chukwu brings a motion for the following relief (taken verbatim from his notice of motion):

a. Appealing for more time required to explore financing to buy-out Ms. Himes's interest the property located at 195 Rockwood Avenue North, Thunder Bay, P7A 647

b. Appraisal of 195 Rockwood Avenue North as per lender's mortgage approval requirements.

c. Seeking full Access to 195 Rockwood Avenue North, Thunder Bay, P7A 6A7 since Ms. Himes no longer reside at the home. Also, I am seeking temporary order to rent out 195 Rockwood Avenue North, Thunder Bay, P7A 6A7 while seeking financial buyout of Miss Himes interest in the property to cover the mortgage payments and house bill cost.

2Ms. Himes filed responding material but for whatever reason it was not uploaded in Caselines for this motion.

3During the motion I was able to ask both Mr. Chukwu and Ms. Himes certain questions. Their answers greatly assisted the Court in determining the very narrow issues framed by the notice of motion before the Court.

4This motion concerns 195 Rockwood Avenue North, Thunder Bay (“the Home”). Both parties are joint owners. The house is currently vacant. Mr. Chukwu currently lives in Brampton. He intends to return to Thunder Bay once he obtains work. He anticipates that to occur in the next three months. Ms. Himes has moved out of the Home. She intends in the New Year to move to Hamilton with the parties’ two biological children, and a person from a previous marriage.

5On November 24, 2023, Pierce J. made an order concerning Mr. Chukwu’s desire to buy out Ms. Nimes’ interest in the Home. He was given 15 days to obtain financing to make the purchase or else the property would be listed for sale. Mr. Chukwu was able to obtain a mortgage commitment on November 29, 2023, but it was contingent on him obtaining an appraisal.

6Mr. Chukwu says Ms. Himes blocked his initial efforts to obtain an appraisal. Her first position on this motion was to object to an order that the appraisal be allowed. However, recent events appear to have overtaken this issue.

7According to Mr. Chukwu the mortgage company was able to obtain an appraisal that was completed on December 9, 2023. In my view, this renders moot Mr. Chukwu’s request for relief in regard to obtaining an appraisal of the Home.

8Secondly, regarding the first request for relief, I am not prepared to make any further order with respect to the time Mr. Chukwu has or does not have to buy out Ms. Himes’ interest in the Home. The order of Pierce J. was to have the House listed for sale by a certain date if Mr. Chukwu was not in a position to buy out Ms. Nimes’ interest. If Mr. Chuckwu was dissatisfied with this order he should have appealed it.

9At this point, Mr. Chukwu has a mortgage commitment. He is free to make an offer to buy out Ms. Himes’ interest in the Home. He would also be free to offer to buy the property outright once it is listed as per the current court order. Any further order about time for him to offer to buy Ms. Himes’s interest would not impact his ability to do so at this point.

10As to the third ground for relief, Mr. Chukwu is a titled owner to the Home. Apparently, there is a restraining order in place that requires Mr. Chukwu give Ms. Himes ten days’ notice of his intention to attend the Home. He should give notice when he wants to attend. Otherwise, there is no need to make any further order in respect of the motion as presented.

11In all, given how events have now unfolded there is no need to do anything further in this matter. Motion dismissed without costs as matters raised in the notice of motion are now moot.