Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-00684784-0000 DATE: 20241104 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: FAZLOLLAH YOUSEFPOURFARD and SARA TAHERZADEH, Plaintiffs – and – LESLIE SHEPPARD, Defendant

BEFORE: Justice E.M. Morgan

COUNSEL: Stefanjia Savic, for the Plaintiffs

HEARD: November 4, 2024

Endorsement

[1] The Plaintiffs bring this motion for summary judgment. They seek damages in the amount of $115,112.22 and dismissal of the Defendant’s counterclaim.

[2] The Defendant’s counsel has obtained an order removing himself from the record. No one has appeared for the Defendant at this motion, despite her having been served with the Plaintiffs’ motion record on July 19, 2024 and factum on September 27, 2024.

[3] The Plaintiffs are the owners of a residential property at 137 Roxborough Drive, Toronto (the “Property”). The Defendant was a tenant of the Property. The tenancy commenced in June 2019, and ended in October 2022. The monthly rent payable by the Defendant was $6,500.00.

[4] On December 1, 2021, the Plaintiffs entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “APS”) to sell the Property. The APS contained a closing date of March 7, 2022, and required that the Plaintiffs deliver vacant possession to the purchaser. Accordingly, on December 6, 2021, the Plaintiffs provided the Defendant with a Form N11 Agreement to End the Tenancy. The N11 indicated March 1, 2022 as the termination date for the tenancy. The Defendant never responded to this communication and never signed the N11. As a result, the Plaintiffs had to negotiate several times with the purchaser to extend the closing date for the sale of the Property.

[5] Although the Plaintiffs were unaware of it at the time, it appears that on April 16, 2022, the Defendant rented and began living in another property, located at 77 Highland Ave., Toronto (“Highland”). Notwithstanding that she had moved to Highland, the Defendant continued to refuse to return possession of the Property to the Plaintiffs. Instead, she began to make requests for payment of unreasonably large sums in money in exchange for her agreement to terminate the tenancy at the Property.

[6] As a result of the Defendant’s unwillingness to vacate the Property, the Plaintiffs were compelled to back out of the sale. On May 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs and the purchaser executed a Mutual Release terminating the APS. In exchange for this Release, the Plaintiffs were required to pay $42,000.00 to the purchasers as damages for the failed transaction (the “Settlement Fee”).

[7] In addition, although she failed to terminate her tenancy, the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent to the Plaintiffs from January through October, 2022 (the “Outstanding Rent”). The Outstanding Rent comes to a total of $65,500.00. Further, the Defendant has not paid any of the utilities at the Property since the commencement of the tenancy (the “Additional Expenses”). The amount of the Additional Expenses that are outstanding comes to $8,112.22.

[8] The Defendant does not dispute the terms of the tenancy in the Property as described by the Plaintiffs. Likewise, she does not dispute the amount of rent owing in respect of the tenancy. There is no dispute that the Defendant failed to pay the Outstanding Rent, nor has she disputed that the Property was sold and that she refused to vacate it until October 2022.

[9] Given that she had already moved to Highland as of April 2022, this course of action by the Defendant was not only unreasonable; it appears to have been done for no apparent reason other than to intentionally cause the Plaintiffs financial loss. The Defendant has presented no evidence that would suggest any other explanation.

[10] Turning to the Defendant’s counterclaim, she pleads liability for $1,000,000.00 in damages for breach of lease, harassment, intrusion upon seclusion and intentional infliction of mental suffering. Given that the Defendant has been unresponsive to this motion to dismiss the counterclaim, there is no evidence in the record to substantiate these causes of action or to establish any damages.

[11] I find that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiffs for the entire Settlement Fee, Outstanding Rent and Additional Expenses. I find that there are no genuine issues requiring trial in respect of either the Plaintiffs’ claim (in which judgment is to be granted) or the Defendant’s counterclaim (which is to be dismissed).

Disposition

[12] The Plaintiffs shall have judgment against the Defendant in the overall amount of $115,112.22.

[13] The Defendant’s Counterclaim is dismissed.

Costs

[14] The Plaintiffs also seek costs of the entire action in the amount of $54,850.88, inclusive of HST, plus disbursements in the amount of $4,589.67. Those amounts are reasonable in the context of the action and the within motion. They are in keeping with Rule 57.01(1)(0.a) and (0.b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, in that they reflect the principle of compensation for the successful party in an amount that would likely not take the unsuccessful party by surprise. They are ordered payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs within 30 days.

[15] There will be a judgment to go as submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Date: November 4, 2024 Morgan J.