Ouimet et al v. Sprague et al, 2025 ONSC 1195

File No.: CV-22-00000262-0000

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Terrance Ouimet, Evangelia Geridis-Ouimet, Viera Ryan and Rebecca Welch
Plaintiffs

• AGAINST –

Daniel Sprague, Lisa Sprague and Storemore Inc.
Defendants

Motion on Notice

(Reasons for Decision)

Before Justice Pierre Roger, on the 18th of February, 2025, sitting at Belleville, Ontario, Courtroom 404

Appearances

• R. Reynolds, for the Plaintiffs
• M. Pederson, for the Defendants

Transcript Ordered: February 19, 2025
Transcript Material Provided: February 19, 2025
Transcript Completed: February 20, 2025
Transcript Released: February 24, 2025

Table of Contents

• Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025
• Reasons for Judgment – Page Two
• A.C.T. Certification – Page 10

Legend

• [sic] – Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error! (SAID IN COURT)
• (indiscernible) – Indicates preceding word is unintelligible and word is not logged!
• (ph) – Indicates the preceding word has been spelled phonetically!

Reasons for Decision

The Defendants’ motion to adjourn the pretrial scheduled for later this week and the trial scheduled for April 2025 is dismissed.

Adjourning a trial is a discretionary decision. Such decisions are to be made considering all applicable circumstances and doing what is fair and just in the circumstances.

The Defendants’ arguments are misconceived. The issues before the Divisional Court and the issues to be resolved at trial are not the same. The court action will decide the equitable ownership issue, not the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court will be concerned with whether the Landlord and Tenant Board erred in law by refusing to take that issue into account, not decide the issue of equitable ownership. There is therefore no risk of inconsistent findings and no inefficiency by proceeding first with the trial as scheduled in the next few months. Rather, it would be inefficient to adjourn the trial and proceed first with the Divisional Court hearing because the trial might very well incidentally resolve the necessity for the Divisional Court hearing, but the Divisional Court hearing will not resolve the issues to be decided at trial. Indeed, only the trial will resolve the equitable ownership issue.

As such, the outcome of the trial will likely incidentally be determinative of whether the two Plaintiffs involved in the Board’s decision stay in the residence or vacate the residence. As such, the trial might incidentally render the Divisional Court hearing moot, while the reverse is not applicable.

The above is enough to dismiss the Defendants’ motion.

Further, I note that it is in the parties’ interest for the civil trial to be heard first as scheduled in April 2025. It will resolve the equitable ownership issue. It would prejudice the Plaintiffs to adjourn the trial as they would then risk eviction prior to the equitable ownership issue being decided.

On the other hand, proceeding to trial first will cause very little, if any, prejudice to the defendants because it will decide that issue once and for all. Similarly, the public and the efficient use of the court will benefit if we proceed first to trial.

Consequently, what is fair and just is to proceed with the trial as scheduled in April 2025 and to dismiss this request for an adjournment.

The Defendants were offered an opportunity to extend the time to deliver an expert report but declined that opportunity indicating that they do not intend to deliver an expert report.

On the topic of costs, the Plaintiffs seek costs and the Defendants argue that there should be no costs. The Defendants argue that it was reasonable to bring this motion to decide these complicated issues sooner rather than later and risk a trial being adjourned at the last minute.

I disagree and find that this motion was not necessary. These were not complicated issues that needed to be decided sooner rather than later; they were not required to be decided.

It is clear and should have been clear that the issues to be decided at trial are different from the issues before the Divisional Court. It is also clear that what is efficient is to proceed with the scheduled trial and have those issues, particularly the equitable ownership issues, decided expeditiously at trial in April 2025.

There was therefore no need for this motion either now or prior to trial.

Costs should follow the result and should be payable to the Plaintiffs on a partial indemnity basis. I find no reason to order costs other than on a partial indemnity basis. Both parties seek similar amounts, confirming the reasonableness of the costs that are sought by the plaintiffs.

Costs of this motion are therefore payable by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs forthwith in the amount of $2,766.24.

Notice of Motion Concluded
(4:03:17 p.m.)

Form 3

Electronic Certificate of Transcript

[Evidence Act, Subsection 5(2)]

I, Jackie Denyes, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript, to the best of my skill and ability of the recording in the matter of R. vs. OUIMET et al vs. SPRAGUE et al, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at the Quinte Courthouse, 15 Bridge Street West, Belleville, Ontario, taken from Recording No. 1311_CR404_20250218_091853__10_ROGERP.dcr which has been certified in Form 1 by Charlotte Dobosh and dated by me this 19th day of February, 2025.

Jackie Denyes, Accredited Court Transcriptionist
#1720903184 Ontario Canada

This certification does not apply to the (Ruling(s), Reasons for Judgment, Reasons for Sentence, or Charge to the Jury) which was/were judicially edited.