Court File and Parties

Court File No.: Sudbury – CV-9666-000/CV-21-9849-0000 Date: 2024-10-30 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Stefan Methot, Plaintiff And: Amy Chan, Defendant

Counsel: Stefan Methot, Self-Represented Gary Marcuccio, for the Defendant

Heard: October 4, 2024

Before: DeLorenzi J.

Reasons on Summary Judgment Motion

[1] This motion for summary judgment came before me today. The matter has a long history dating back to 2021. The plaintiff, Mr. Methot, although initially had counsel is now self-represented. He was requesting an adjournment on today’s date. I indicated that I was not prepared to grant the adjournment and proceeded to hear the motion.

Adjournment Request

[2] Mr. Methot was first served with this motion for summary judgment on July 4, 2024. In August he filed a notice of intention to act in person.

[3] On August 9, 2024, the matter was before Justice Richard. Justice Richard adjourned the matter on consent to September 6, 2024. The matter next appeared before me on September 6, 2024. Mr. Methot at that time was requesting an adjournment to seek counsel. Mr. Marcuccio, counsel for Ms. Chan opposed the request for an adjournment on that date, Mr. Marcuccio submitted that Mr. Methot had on the last occasion advised he was seeking counsel and was of the view that he had had adequate time to find counsel and had taken no steps to do so.

[4] On September 6, 2024, it was clear to me that Mr. Methot had made no efforts to either retain counsel or file any material despite his assertions that he had been looking for a lawyer. However, on that date, I granted Mr. Methot a further one-month adjournment to either retain counsel or file material. I marked the matter pre-emptory and advised Mr. Methot that he would either need counsel or need to argue the motion. Mr. Methot confirmed that he understood.

[5] Mr. Methot returned on this date and advised the court that he had not taken any steps to retain counsel or respond to the motion. He had no concrete plans to retain counsel only indicating that he was hopeful he would come into some money from a job he was doing. I declined his request for the adjournment and heard the matter on its merits.

[6] Mr. Methot has advanced claims against two assets which are solely in the Defendant Ms. Chan’s name. The first claim is related to a home known municipally as 666 Pearson Drive in Sudbury, Ontario. Ms. Chan purchased the home on September 25, 2018 and she was the sole registered owner. The second claim of Mr. Methot is with respect to a corporation, namely 2651310 Ontario Ltd. which owns a 21-unit apartment complex and of which Ms. Chan is the sole shareholder and operating mind.

[7] While Mr. Methot has not filed any material as evidence in this motion there is affidavit material which has been filed in this consolidated action. Furthermore, there are transcripts of a cross-examination of Mr. Methot which formed part of Ms. Chan’s affidavit. I have received those and permitted Mr. Methot to make submissions to the court on this motion.

666 Pearson Drive

[8] Ms. Chan and Mr. Methot lived in the home located at 666 Pearson Drive together for approximately 8 months between January 2019 and September 24, 2019.

[9] There was an agreement between the parties that Mr. Methot would work to fix up the Pearson property and would share in the profits of a flip. The agreement between the parties was not reduced to writing, however, there was general agreement that Mr. Methot would share in the profit from the flip in exchange for his work to improve the property.

[10] On September 24, 2019, the parties were in an altercation where the police were called and following that, Ms. Chan moved out of the home. Mr. Methot continued to reside in the home and Ms. Chan continued to pay all the bills including the mortgage, property tax, and the gas bill. Mr. Methot never made any financial contribution to the home.

[11] Ms. Chan attempted to have Mr. Methot removed from the home through various means including an eviction letter, eliciting the assistance of the police, bringing an application to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, and ultimately bringing the within application seeking vacant possession of the premises.

[12] Mr. Methot’s previous counsel, Mr. Longstreet and Mr. Marcuccio, Ms. Chan’s counsel negotiated an interim consent order with respect to the subject premises. The order permitted the sale of the house and the net sale proceeds to be held in trust. The premises sold on March 1, 2024. Following the payment of all fees, capital gains and taxes the remainder of the money from the sale was held in trust by the Defendant’s solicitor.

[13] Mr. Methot in submissions to this court advises that the house was sold “how they found it”. He advises that he and Ms. Chan were both to contribute 50/50 but given the breakdown of their relationship that did not occur. He advised that he did not have a chance to improve the property and thus did not get a chance to profit from the flip. At one point in his cross-examination which formed part of Ms. Chan’s affidavit, he said that he paid for certain items and had receipts, but those receipts were, he believes, stolen by Ms. Chan.

[14] Ms. Chan for her part says that the home where Mr. Methot was living was not improved and in fact deteriorated into a deplorable state. Ms. Chan has provided by way of affidavit photographic evidence of the condition of the property at the time of sale.

[15] In summary, Mr. Methot admitted, and his admission coincides with Ms. Chan’s evidence, that he did not do any work and thus did not fulfill his end of the bargain to improve the property to be entitled to profit from any flip.

[16] In addition, it is not disputed, that between September 24, 2019, up to and including February 29, 2024 when the home was sold, Mr. Methot continued to reside in the premises without the consent of the registered owner. He did not contribute financially to the mortgage or any of the bills, he did not pay any rent, occupational or otherwise. It is also apparent from the evidence that he did not undertake any upkeep of the premises let alone undertake any improvements to the home.

2651310 Ontario Ltd.

[17] 26513 Ontario Ltd. is a company that owns a 21-unit apartment complex in Lively, Ontario. The apartment complex was purchased on September 28, 2019. The sole shareholder officer and director of the company is Ms. Chan.

[18] The funds for the purchase of the apartments through the numbered company were proceeds from a sale of property in Barrie also owned by Ms. Chan. Ms. Chan confirms that Mr. Methot never paid any money towards the mortgage or downpayment on the apartment building. Furthermore, she denies that there was ever any agreement with respect to Mr. Methot having any interest in the numbered company.

[19] Mr. Methot claims that there was an agreement that he, although not a shareholder or director of that company, has a vested interest in the shares. Again, any agreement in this respect was not reduced to writing.

[20] Mr. Methot’s evidence was that he collected the rent “a few times”, did some “mechanical stuff” and plowed the parking lot. While not clear, it appears the allegation is that he would have undertaken this work for a very short period. His evidence was he stopped doing work and Ms. Chan was wasting a lot of money having to hire contractors and him not doing the work.

Summary Judgment

[21] Summary judgment is an important tool for enhancing access to justice where it provides a fair process that results in a just adjudication of disputes. This is especially important as the civil litigation process becomes increasingly expensive and out of the reach of many litigants. When the Rule is used appropriately, it can achieve proportionate, timely, and cost-effective adjudication.

[22] The relevant sections of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, are as follows:

20.01(3) A defendant may, after delivering a statement of defence, move with supporting affidavit material or other evidence for summary judgment dismissing all or part of the claim in the statement of claim.

20.02(2) In response to affidavit material or other evidence supporting a motion for summary judgment, a responding party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings, but must set out, in affidavit material or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.

20.04(2) The court shall grant summary judgment if,

(a)the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to a claim or defence; or

[23] Most recently the Ontario Court of Appeal in Royal Bank of Canada v. 1643937 Ontario Inc., 2021 ONCA 98, at para. 24 set out the analytic approach I must consider:

(1) First, the motion judge should determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial based only on the evidence before the court without using the enhanced fact finding powers under rule 20.04(2.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194;

(2) Second, if there appeared to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, the motion judge should determine if the need for a trial could be avoided by using the enhanced powers under rule 20.04(2.1) which allow a judge to weigh evidence, evaluate the credibility of a deponent, and draw any reasonable inference from the evidence and under rule 20.04(2.2) to order that oral evidence be presented by one or more parties.

[24] It is imperative that each party puts their best foot forward on a motion for summary judgment. A party is not permitted to sit back and suggest that they would have better evidence. A court proceeds on the basis that each of the parties has advanced their best case and the record contains all the evidence that would be led at trial, see Prism Resources Inc. v. Detour Gold Corporation, 2022 ONCA 326.

[25] In Boland v. Lyle, 2016 ONSC 7418, at para. 13, the court stated:

[13] The expectation that parties "put their best food (sic) forward" or "lead trump or risk losing" in motions for summary judgment applies with even more fervor after Hryniak. There are numerous cases confirming that judges will generally assume that parties have played their best cards in bringing or responding to motions for summary judgment. Based on this expectation, judges will infer that no better evidence will be available at trial. In Danos v BMS Group, 2014 ONSC 2060, Goldstein J. stated as follows:

"A party on a summary judgment motion cannot just sit back and wait for more favorable evidence to develop at trial. I am entitled to assume that the evidence filed by the Danos's is as good as it gets. I can and do draw an adverse inference from Peter Danos's failure to put forward any evidence whatsoever in relation to the critical issues in this case. Assuming there is no better evidence available, as I am entitled to do, it would be unjust to force the Defendant to carry on with this litigation to trial.".

[26] Mr. Methot has not, by his own omission, participated in the motion. He had been given ample opportunity to participate or at least indicate by his actions that he intended to participate. He has not filed any specific material on this motion, and he has not taken any steps to retain counsel.

[27] As such this court is required to determine on the evidentiary record before it, if there is any genuine issue for trial as it would be unjust to force Ms. Chan to carry on with this litigation to trial.

[28] Based on the evidence that I do have before me, I can fairly determine the motion without resort to the enhanced powers provided for by the Rules of Civil Procedure. I am satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. In addition, if I were to resort to the enhanced powers, particularly the weighing of the credibility of the parties and draw inferences from the evidence, this would simply affirm my conclusion.

[29] As it relates to Mr. Methot’s claim, all the items that were plead relating to the property including a vesting order, exclusive possession, and non trespass have become moot following the sale of the property. The remaining claims include damages for unjust enrichment and for a vesting of the shares of the numbered company. There are also damages plead for breach of contract and bad faith.

[30] With respect to the claim for those damages related to the 666 Pearson Drive property, I find there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. The parties are in agreement with respect to the original arrangement. At its most basic level, Ms. Chan was to provide the financial investment into the property and Mr. Methot was to perform work on the property. Once those events occurred the parties were to share in the profits of the “flip”.

[31] Mr. Methot in his submissions confirmed that he did not perform work on the premises at least after September 24, 2019, and maybe not at all. When defending accusations that he let the property deteriorate to a state where money had to be spent to facilitate listing the property, he stated that the property was sold exactly as it was purchased. In the end, he did not fulfill his end of the agreement.

[32] Furthermore, post-September 24, 2019, Mr. Methot refused to vacate the premises to allow the property to be sold. As such, not only did he not hold up his end of the agreement to perform the work on the premises, he refused to vacate, and as such, Ms. Chan was unable to “flip” or list and sell the home. Ms. Chan had to incur four years and five months of expenses and carrying costs for the premises where Mr. Methot continued to reside.

[33] Ms. Chan through counsel indicated that there will not be a claim for occupational rent for the four years and five months that Mr. Methot continued to reside in the premises. I find that even if there were profits from the flip, for which there is no evidence, they were not as a result of Mr. Methot’s efforts. Furthermore, any profits would be offset by the carrying costs and occupational rent over the time Mr. Methot refused to vacate and sell the property.

[34] Having found that there was no material fact in issue that would create a genuine issue for trial, it was up to Mr. Methot to establish that his position had a real chance of success. Not only has Mr. Methot not established that he has a real chance of success, but his submissions that the home sold exactly as it was purchased and the evidence that he refused to move out or agree to the sale until the within application was brought demonstrate that there is no chance of success.

[35] As it relates to the claim over 26513 Ontario Ltd., I find that there is no evidence that there was a contract formed or agreement with respect to an ownership stake by Mr. Methot. Ms. Chan has provided evidence that there was absolutely no agreement related to the apartment complex.

[36] Mr. Methot has not provided evidence of specific facts to allow me to conclude that there was an agreement, if there was an agreement the terms of that agreement, and whether the parties carried out their obligations under that agreement. Apart from there being no evidence with respect to any agreement, Mr. Methot states that he did some minor repairs, made some calls, and plowed snow. I find that these contributions, even if made, are not sufficient to entitle him to an interest in the shares of that corporation.

[37] In my view, Ms. Chan has satisfied me that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial related to whether Mr. Methot is entitled to an ownership stake in 26513 Ontario Ltd. Thereafter, Mr. Methot has not been able to establish a real chance of success.

Sale Proceeds

[38] Pursuant to the Endorsement of Justice Gordon of September 22, 2023, an order was to issue on the terms of the Minutes of Settlement which had been filed.

[39] The Minutes of Settlement indicates that the net sale proceeds from the sale of the property were to be held in trust by the defendants’ solicitors. Furthermore, the funds were being held “subject to the agreement and consent of the parties or further Order of the Court”. There is currently $164,319.38 being held in that trust account.

[40] Ms. Chan’s counsel asks me to make an order with respect to the disbursement of the funds currently being held in his trust account. I am unaware if there is any “agreement” between the parties for the disbursement of these funds or whether it was simply being held on account of Mr. Methot’s claims advanced herein. While I suspect it is the latter and there are no further conditions on the trust monies, I cannot make an order concerning those funds held in trust.

Conclusion

[41] I conclude that there are no genuine issues requiring a trial. I grant summary judgment in favour of Ms. Chan in respect of the claims advanced by Mr. Methot in the within matter and will dismiss Mr. Methot’s claim.

[42] On the evidence before me I cannot make an order with respect to the trust monies, however, given my decision herein if there are no further conditions on the funds an order may not be necessary.

[43] If the parties are not able to resolve the costs of this action, Ms. Chan may provide to me costs submissions of no more than three double-spaced pages on or before November 15, 2024. Mr. Methot may deliver his responding submission of no more than three double-spaced pages on or before November 29, 2024. No reply submissions are to be delivered without leave.

DeLorenzi J. Released: October 30, 2024