COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-1798
DATE: 2024 07 04
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton ON L6W 4T6
RE:
KYRZAKOS, Michael, Applicant
AND:
BAUGHMAN, Gloria, Respondent
BRADLEY, Valerie, Respondent
BEFORE:
Justice D.E. Harris
COUNSEL:
PINIZZOTTO, Frank for the plaintiff
CLARK, James for the defendants
HEARD:
June 27, 2024, by video conference
ENDORSEMENT
[1] Michael, Gloria and Valerie are siblings. They are in their 70’s. Together the three are equal shareholders in Aspidis, an Ontario corporation, originally owned and controlled by their parents. Aspidis’ main holdings are two commercial properties in Sudbury, Ontario, known as the Kingsway properties. The two properties generate little income but they have significant resale value.
[2] For many years, there has been dissension between Michael, now 79 years old and in poor health, and his two sisters. Michael has allegedly been excluded from having any role in Aspidis. He has wanted to sell Kingsway for many years now and has conveyed that wish to his sisters. Although they have agreed in theory, Gloria and Valerie take the position that the time has not yet been right for a sale.
[3] Michael now applies for an oppression declaration with respect to the affairs of Aspidis and several forms of corollary relief against his sisters. There are affidavits supporting the relief requested from Michael and a joint affidavit opposing the relief from Gloria and Valerie. On this short motion, the parties agreed that there was insufficient time to resolve the ultimate oppression issues. That will have to await another day.
[4] Rather, Mr. Pinizzotto for the applicant requested that the court order an appraisal of the Kingsway properties. Mr. Chark for the respondents is opposed, arguing that there is no jurisdiction to make such an order prior to an oppression finding. He adds that because an appraisal can be done relatively quickly, there is no reason for it to be done now.
[5] I do not agree. The stalemate between the siblings is one of long standing. From early on, the sisters have agreed to sell but their actions have suggested otherwise. While the sisters proclaim that this is a business decision, and they are undoubtably correct as far as it goes, no one is getting any younger. The value of the property is largely locked up and inaccessible without it being sold.
[6] I am not in a position to make an oppression finding nor am I making such a finding. However, the situation is concerning. It is alleged that the two sisters have agreed to an appraisal in the past. An appraisal could have the effect of breaking the logjam that exists. It could enable a sale of Michael’s shares in Aspidis to his sisters, for example. An appraisal could lead to some optimism about the value of the property on the market and affect the sisters’ current position. An appraisal could shed light on whether the sisters’ position that this is not a good time to sell is tenable or not.
[7] The price of an appraisal, as set out in the record, is not exorbitant. In the circumstances, I order that Aspidis forthwith fund an appraisal of the Kingsway properties.
Costs of this motion will be reserved to the next hearing. The main oppression motion is adjourned sine die.
D.E. Harris
Released: July 4, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-1798
DATE: 2024 07 04
RE:
KYRZAKOS, Michael, Applicant
AND:
BAUGHMAN, Gloria, Respondent
BRADLEY, Valerie, Respondent
BEFORE:
Justice D.E. Harris
COUNSEL:
PINIZZOTTO, Frank for the
plaintiff
CLARK, James for the defendants
HEARD:
June 27, 2024, by video conference
ENDORSEMENT
D.E. Harris J.
Released: July 4, 2024