Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-21-00672123-0000
Date: 2025-06-26
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
Radlett Holdings Inc. and James Richardson, Douglas Phibbs and Donald McQuigge in their capacity as executors of the Estate of William Brian Geoffrey Humphries, Plaintiffs
– and –
Yue Qiu Zheng, also known as Angela Zheng, Defendant
Appearances:
Jean DeMarco, for the Plaintiffs
Sara Erskine and Stephanie Cheung, for the Defendant
Heard: May 21-23, 2025
Judge: Lorne Brownstone
Introduction
[1] Mr. Bill Humphries, the sole owner and principal of the plaintiff Radlett Holdings Inc., was a wealthy man. His wife, whom he had married later in life, predeceased him, and he had no children.
[2] Bill developed a relationship with the defendant’s sister Jenny Zheng.[^1]
[3] At the time Bill and Jenny met, Jenny was recently divorced and experiencing some financial difficulties. Bill and Jenny entered into an arrangement whereby through Radlett, Bill advanced $1.1 million, about half the purchase price, toward the purchase of a house for Jenny. In return, Radlett received a 50% interest in the home. Jenny was on title to the property. She was not required to pay any interest on the loan, but when the house was sold, Radlett would receive 50% of the net proceeds.
[4] Bill made this agreement with Jenny prior to consulting his lawyer, Mary Griffith, whom he asked to paper the deal. Mary was unhappy with the documents Bill provided her, but based on what she was given, Mary prepared a collateral mortgage in favour of Bill that was ultimately registered on Jenny’s property.
[5] Through Jenny, Bill met Jenny’s sister, Angela. Angela taught music to children. She ran a music school and staged concerts. Bill was very interested in music and the arts, and in education. He and Angela became friends. In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Angela’s revenue decreased drastically. The school was in dire straits. She could not afford the studio rent.
[6] Bill wanted to help Angela. Through Radlett, he advanced $1.2 million towards the purchase of a $2 million home that was suitable for Angela’s use as both a residence and a studio for teaching and recording music. Angela took title to the property.
[7] Again, Bill called Mary after he had made the arrangement with Angela. Bill told Mary he had made a similar arrangement to the last one she had papered for him. Sadly, shortly after he advanced the funds to Angela and spoke to Mary, Bill learned he had advanced pancreatic cancer. He became noncommunicative within about a month and died shortly thereafter.
[8] Radlett and Bill's estate sue Angela, seeking a declaration that the estate has a 60% interest in Angela’s property or, in the alternative, seeking repayment of the $1.2 million advanced. The plaintiffs abandoned their claim for an equitable mortgage on the property. Angela argues that the funds were advanced to her as a gift. She asks that the claim be dismissed.
Governing Law
[9] The parties agree on the governing principles.
[10] A resulting trust arises when title to property is in one person’s name, but because that person has given no value for the property, she has an obligation to return it to the original title owner: Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, para 20. Indeed, a “purchase money resulting trust” is a classic resulting trust situation and can occur where a person contributes to a property’s purchase price without taking title: Andrade v. Andrade, 2016 ONCA 368, paras 57-58.
[11] Angela acknowledges that she bears the burden of rebutting the presumption of a resulting trust and proving that Bill advanced the funds to her as a gift: Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, para 24.
[12] Both parties rely on Colangelo v. Amore, 2010 ONSC 5657, para 59, in which D.M. Brown J. (as he then was) cited Halsbury’s Laws of Canada summarizing the issue of donative intent, as follows:
To establish the requisite intention to donate, or animus donandi, it must be shown that the donor intended to part with the property and did not intend to reserve to himself or herself the ultimate right of disposal. The evidence should be inconsistent with any other intention or purpose than that the donor intended to divest himself or herself of the possession of the property. The intention of a donor may be inferred from an examination of that person’s acts along with various extrinsic factors, including the nature of the relationship between the parties to the transaction, the size of the gift as measured against the total of the donor’s property, and the importance of the gifted item in relation to the donor’s overall property. There must be some evidence that a gift was intended other than a self-serving affidavit by the alleged donee.
In considering whether a gift or a loan was intended, the court may look at the surrounding circumstances, as well as the evidence of the alleged donor. If it is proven that the payment of money was made, the burden is on the recipient of the money to show that both parties knew and intended that the money not be repaid. It is not sufficient that the recipient of the property assumed that a gift was being made: a donative intent must be clearly fastened upon the donor.
[13] The actual intention of the transferor is the governing consideration: Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, paras 43-44. The question is the intention of the transferor at the time the funds were advanced: Nishi v. Rascal Trucking Ltd., 2013 SCC 33, paras 30 and 41. Evidence of post-advancement activity must relate to the transferor’s intention at the time of advancement. The court must be live to the possibility that such evidence is not reliable or relates to a change of intention: Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, para 59.
[14] Further, in accordance with s. 13 of the Evidence Act, RSO 1990, c. E.23, Angela’s evidence alone does not suffice. When a claim involves an interest in an estate, the interested party’s evidence (here Angela’s) must be “corroborated by some other material evidence.” That means there must be direct or circumstantial evidence independent of Angela’s that shows that her evidence on a material issue is true. The corroborative evidence may be cumulative; it need not be a single piece of evidence. The standard of proof required is a balance of probabilities: Riordan v. Mellon, paras 21, 29. The scope of evidence capable of providing corroboration should not be narrowly interpreted: Brisco Estate v. Canadian Premier Life Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 854, para 62. The court is justified in carefully scrutinizing the cogency of the supporting evidence: Riordan v. Mellon, para 9.
Has Angela Met Her Burden of Rebutting the Presumption That the Funds Were Not Advanced as a Gift?
Circumstances of Jenny’s Transaction
[15] Angela relies on the circumstances of Bill’s advancement of the funds to her in seeking to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust. I accept the plaintiffs’ contention that Bill’s earlier transaction with Jenny is a relevant circumstance.
[16] The court heard from Jenny, Angela’s younger sister. Angela objected to Jenny’s evidence being adduced at trial. For oral reasons delivered on the first day of trial, I allowed the evidence to be adduced. I held in part that Jenny’s evidence may provide information of surrounding facts and circumstances that are useful to the court in determining the deceased’s actual intention. To the extent it does so, the evidence is admissible in accordance with Rondel v. Robinson Estate, 2011 ONCA 493.
[17] I also rejected Angela’s contention that Jenny's evidence was being adduced as similar fact evidence and did not meet the test for admissibility of such evidence. I find that the evidence relating to the transaction with Jenny has direct factual relevance to Bill's intention. It is not being adduced as a separate similar transaction from which I am asked to draw an inference of Bill’s propensity regarding real estate transactions. It is being adduced as a fact to which Bill referred when he described the transaction with Angela to others.
[18] Jenny testified that she and Bill met each other through a mutual friend in 2017 or 2018. At the time, Jenny was in the midst of a lengthy, messy divorce. She was living with two children in a small apartment in the same building as one of Bill's friends. Bill and Jenny became friends. Jenny described Bill as being very sympathetic to her situation. Upon learning that she could not afford a lawyer for her family law proceedings, he offered to help. He helped her both financially and by attending lawyers’ offices with her. They became friends and then developed a romantic relationship.
[19] Bill helped Jenny with her debts. He started writing her cheques to pay for her visa bills. He bemoaned the lack of privacy in her apartment and said she should buy a house. She said she could not afford to, and Bill told her that his company would invest in the house, like a mortgage except with no interest. They started looking for a house together.
[20] Bill and Jenny agreed that she would get a mortgage for one million dollars, the maximum amount for which she was approved, and that Bill would help her with the rest of the purchase price. She would enter into what Jenny described as an “agreement on the side” with his company, Radlett.
[21] Jenny purchased a house for $2,138,000. One million dollars was financed by Jenny’s mortgage, a small amount by Jenny, and the rest by Bill.
[22] Jenny and Bill entered into a written agreement regarding their arrangements a few days before Jenny’s house purchase closed on December 7, 2018.
[23] Mr. Johnston, Bill’s accountant, suggested that Bill contact Mary Griffith, a lawyer and friend of Mr. Johnston's.
[24] Mary testified that Bill was first referred to her by Mr. Johnston in 2015 or 2016 to incorporate Ignite the Spirit, a foundation Bill created, as a not-for-profit and charitable foundation.
[25] Mary next worked for Bill at the end of 2018. Bill called to tell her that he was entering into an arrangement with a woman he had met through a friend of his, for whom he felt terribly sorry. Mary was not certain whether Bill called it a loan, but Bill advised Mary that he was going to invest with the woman so that she could buy a house. Bill would get the return on his investment when the house was sold. Mary testified that she did not hear about the transaction until after Bill had advanced the funds. Bill emailed her documents which did not reflect the way she would have prepared them. The first time Mary saw the documents was at the end of November 2018 and the second in early December 2018. Although Mary had made some comments on the documents, Bill did not respond to them. He simply told her when the transaction had closed.
[26] Mary described that she prepared the collateral mortgage for Jenny’s house. Although they had agreed that Bill would wait a month before registering the mortgage, it took them almost three months before it was registered. She explained that Bill was not in a rush to get things done.
[27] Mary made it clear to Bill that she was not happy with things having proceeded in the order they did, with him only getting in touch with her after he had advanced the funds.
[28] Jenny testified that Bill continued to give her money every month to help with the mortgage and paid her legal fees until just before he got sick. After the COVID-19 pandemic started, they saw each other less, and their relationship ended before he fell ill in the fall of 2020.
Angela’s Transaction
[29] Jenny described introducing Bill to Angela in 2018. Angela has a strong background in music. She operated a music school where she taught students of all ages and staged concerts and monthly performances. Angela testified that Bill was very admiring of her work, and that he would regularly attend the school performances and visit the school.
[30] Angela and Bill communicated in English. Angela testified at trial through an interpreter, explaining that she was nervous, that she had never testified before, that it was a solemn place, and that she wanted to be certain she understood and provided accurate answers. Angela testified that she was not fluent in English but was able to communicate in basic conversations. This was confirmed by Mr. James Richardson,[^2] Bill’s friend and executor, who testified that Angela’s English was halting, but they were able to communicate with one another when they met after Bill’s death.
[31] Angela and Bill also became friends outside of the school. They would have coffee and meals together.
[32] Angela’s business suffered dramatically when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. She could no longer afford the rent for the school’s studio. Angela described how difficult this was for her, as she had poured her financial and emotional resources into building the school and had developed close relationships with her students.
[33] At the same time as the school was suffering, Angela’s landlord sold the house in which she rented a room and she had to move out. She had purchased a pre-construction condominium but lost her deposit of $170,000 when the builder declared bankruptcy.
[34] The combination of COVID-19 and its adverse impact on the school, her eviction from her home, and the bankruptcy of the corporation building her condominium was too much for her. She was worried she would have nowhere for her daughter to live when she returned from university after graduating in 2020.
[35] Bill suggested Angela buy a single property that could be used both as a residence and to run the school. She said she only had $800,000, which would be enough to buy a townhome, but a property of the kind he was suggesting would cost two million dollars. Angela testified that she told Bill she was in a different situation than Jenny and could not repay the money.
[36] Angela testified that Bill wanted the school to continue. He told her to start looking for a house, and when she found one, they would talk about the money. On September 26, 2020, she found a suitable house, but told Bill it was out of her budget. The telephone records support her evidence that she and Bill had a long discussion that evening. Angela testified that Bill told her that if the house was suitable, he would give her the difference in price, 1.2 million dollars. He told her he needed some time to get the funds ready, so she would need to pay the downpayment. The next day, Bill went with her to see the house, agreed it was suitable, and told her to pay the downpayment.
[37] Angela states that she and Bill had a conversation in which he assured her that advancing her the funds would not cause him a financial burden. Bill told her he was doing it not just for her but to help the school survive. Bill told her he would speak with his accountant about the funds and that she should not worry. Angela testified that Bill told her he often made donations.
[38] On October 13, 2020, Angela was at the studio when Bill brought her the funds for the house. She described opening the envelope with the cheque inside and said she could not believe what she was seeing as she had never seen a cheque so large. When she asked Bill if he was sure she did not need to pay it back he said, “no, it is a gift.” She denies that Bill ever expressed an intention to own part of the house.
[39] Angela continued to speak to Bill after this date, and the telephone records confirm she and Bill had contact until November 5, 2020.
[40] Denis Fung, who shared studio space with Angela until she moved to the new house, testified that he was in the room when Bill gave Angela the gift. He said he was walking around the studio and kept working while they were talking. He overheard their conversation, and picked up some words, but was not intentionally listening. He saw Bill give Angela an envelope, and he overheard Bill say that it was for the school, and that “I am giving you a big gift.”
[41] Mary testified that she heard from Bill on about October 15, 2020, for the first time since she had assisted with the collateral mortgage on Jenny’s property. Bill called her from his car when he was en route to Niagara-on-the-Lake. Bill told Mary that she would be annoyed because he had “done it again.” He said he had advanced funds to someone who purchased a house to help them with the purchase, the same way he had done for Jenny, and he would need Mary to paper this one too. Mary testified that she was not certain whether he used the word loan or advance, but she was certain he did not call it a gift. It was to be the same kind of transaction as the last one.
[42] Bill did not want to give her the name of the house purchaser over the phone, which she did not find unusual for him. He told Mary he would call her when he got back to Toronto, and they would talk about it. Mary asked Bill to call her and send him the agreement of purchase and sale when he returned. He agreed that he would provide her the specifics when he was back in the city.
[43] Mary testified that Bill was “not an immediate response kind of guy”. She thinks she tried to reach him and believes he left a message for her in early November that he would get back to her. They did not leave substantive voicemails for each other as a rule. She expected Bill to try to call her again, and he never did. She could do nothing to paper the deal because she had no specifics. The next she heard about Bill was in early December 2020 when she was told he had died.
[44] Mary’s evidence about Bill’s intention was similar to that of Mr. Johnston. On November 9, 2020, when Mr. Johnston received the monthly statement from Bill’s broker, Mr. Johnston saw that $1.2 million had been withdrawn. He called Bill to ask what the funds were for. Bill told him that it was for Angela and, since he wanted to be fair to both sisters, he would treat it the way he treated the funds he advanced to Jenny. He told Mr. Johnston that he had contacted Mary and she was going to go through the same process as had gone through with Jenny. He never told Mr. Johnston that the funds advanced to Angela were advanced as a gift.
Bill’s Means and Charitable Giving
[45] Both parties submit that Bill’s record of charitable giving supports their version of events. The evidence about his history of donations came from various sources.
[46] Mr. Richardson testified that Bill was a man of significant means, and had amassed investments that were worth between 20 and 35 million dollars at the time of his death. Bill had established Radlett in 1998. In recent years, he had become passionate about indigenous issues. He started a foundation called Ignite the Spirit of Education through which he donated generously to indigenous education.
[47] Mr. Richardson and Bill never discussed the transaction with Angela. Mr. Richardson only learned of the transaction when he started administering Bill’s estate. When Mr. Richardson started his work as trustee and reviewed Radlett’s records, he thought the amount advanced to Angela was a loan.
[48] Mr. Johnston testified that he prepared Bill’s personal and corporate tax returns, financial statements, audits for Radlett, and charity returns for the Radlett foundation and Ignite the Spirit. Mr. Johnston explained that Bill made a large sum of charitable donations through his corporations, but also made some small personal donations at the end of each year. All the donations were to registered charities, for which Bill received receipts for tax purposes.
[49] Mr. Johnston received monthly statements for Radlett and recorded all entries in Radlett’s books. At the end of each year, he would prepare Radlett’s financial statements. Mr. Johnston was aware of only one occasion on which Bill had assisted a friend who had run into hard times. Bill gave the friend an interest-free loan for $50,000. Mr. Johnston was not aware of any other time Bill had donated money that was not to a registered charity.
[50] The documentary evidence supports Mr. Johnston’s evidence that Bill’s sizeable and generous donations, upwards of one million dollars a year, were always made to registered charities for which tax receipts were given. The records also reveal that he did not make singular donations in amounts approaching the size of the transfer to Angela. Further, Bill always required Radlett’s books to be audited, so any large expenditures had to be explained and backed up by paper.
[51] With respect to Angela’s school, the evidence is that Bill made no donations to it. He once offered to buy the school a piano, an offer that Angela declined. He bought tickets to the school performances and gave a $700 donation to a charity on whose behalf the school hosted a concert.
Events Leading Up to Bill’s Death
[52] Mr. Johnston testified that when he and Bill were in contact in November 2020, Bill realized he did not have long to live, and he wanted to transfer as many of his assets as possible into Radlett. His life's work had been donating, and he wanted the assets in the foundation so he could be sure they would be donated. Bill told Mr. Johnston that Mr. Johnston was the only person who could make this happen. Arrangements were made with Bill’s broker to move all Bill’s Canadian personal holdings into Radlett. They were in the process of moving the US holdings, but did not get it done in time, because Bill became unable to function. Mr. Johnston last had any communication with Bill on about November 20, 2020.
[53] Mr. Johnston advised that he did not know about Bill’s friendship with Angela prior to the November 9, 2020, conversation. Mr. Johnston explained that he was the one who initiated the conversation about the $1.2 million when he received the statement showing that the funds had gone out. Four to five days later Bill told Mr. Johnston that he wanted to get the assets moved as quickly as possible. He wanted all the money moved into the foundation from which it would be donated to registered charities. Mr. Johnston acted as the liaison between Bill and his broker to effect this arrangement.
Positions of the Parties
[54] Angela argues that Bill intended that the arrangements between Jenny and Bill and those between Angela and Bill were to be different. Jenny agreed that she understood before she looked for houses that Bill would be investing in the house, that he would give her money and he would get a mortgage. She knew that she would not have to pay Bill back until she sold the house, and that the mortgage would be interest free. It would be due on the sale of the property. Jenny understood that she would hold half her interest in the house in trust for Bill or Radlett.
[55] Angela argues that her arrangement with Bill was completely different from that of Jenny. He knew she could not pay back a loan. She argues that a gift to her was consistent with Bill’s other conduct. For example, he was passionate about music and about children’s education. He supported children’s musical education at the Royal Conservatory of Music and also donated to a private elementary school. He wanted to save Angela’s school.
[56] Further, Bill was a generous man, and his donations in recent years amounted to over one million dollars annually. The amount advanced was a fraction of Bill’s estate. He assured Angela he could afford an advance of that magnitude and that assurance is objectively true.
[57] The plaintiffs argue that Bill intended the transaction with Angela to be like the transaction with Jenny, whereby through Radlett, he would keep an interest in the house in proportion to his investment. The evidence of Mary and Mr. Johnston confirm this. Further, that intention accords with other external factors. Bill never donated to Angela’s school. There was no reason he would provide a gift of this magnitude to Angela. His habit was to donate through registered charities. He and Mary simply ran out of time to paper the transaction with Angela. That does not mean his intention was to make a gift. It was not.
Analysis
[58] It is Bill’s intention, not Angela’s, that governs whether the advancement of funds was a gift. I will not repeat the legal principles I am applying, which I have set out above.
[59] In reaching my conclusions, I have weighed the evidence of the witnesses and the documentary evidence. With respect to the witness testimony, I prefer the evidence of the plaintiffs’ witnesses to the defendants’ witnesses.
[60] Both Angela and Denis had difficulty answering basic questions in a straightforward way. For example, when asked what Angela did when Bill handed her the cheque, Denis answered that after Bill left Angela showed him the cheque. When asked if Bill gave Angela the cheque soon after he arrived at the studio, he responded “what do you mean soon after?” He was defensive when cross examined on the difference in his evidence at trial compared to his witness statement. In addition, Denis’s evidence was internally inconsistent. He testified that he was going about his business and could only pick up a few words of Bill and Angela’s conversation. Yet he said he vividly remembered Bill's words “I’m here to give you a big gift” (which were not the words Angela said he used).
[61] Although Denis tried to portray his relationship with Angela as negative after Angela moved out of the studio space, he acknowledged in cross examination that she is one of his two current clients. In this capacity, they continue to see each other regularly. I did not find him to be a forthright or credible witness and I do not accept his evidence.
[62] Angela, too, had difficulty answering questions in a straightforward manner. For example, when asked in examination in chief if she ever talked to Bill about paying for the property after they saw it together, she answered with a lengthy explanation about why the property was particularly suited to her proposed use.
[63] Further, she was very vague when answering the question of how Bill described giving her the money at the time she put an offer on the house. When asked if there were discussions about paying the money back, Angela answered that she put down a down payment and then they discussed the plan. She said she had mixed feelings after paying a down payment, and it was complicated. That was why she needed to have a discussion with Bill. She was worried about the pressure on him and whether he could afford it.
[64] Given the importance of the issue to her, it defies common sense that she would have entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for $2,000,000 and put down a down payment based on Bill’s vague comments that predated her providing the downpayment. She relayed those comments of being that she should not worry about it, should go home and get a good sleep, and should put down the down payment.
[65] For all of these reasons, I find her evidence about the transaction with Bill not credible.
[66] In contrast, I find that Mary’s evidence, particularly when coupled with that of Mr. Johnston, is most helpful in providing insight into Bill's intention. Mary is a third-party witness who acted for Bill in a professional, arms-length capacity. Her evidence was credible, not overstated, and did not change on cross examination. In a straightforward manner, she explained the telephone call that she received from Bill. She gave the evidence in a manner that was simply recounting facts.
[67] Mary’s evidence also made internal sense, since the conduct she described was consistent with Bill's previous conduct. That is, Bill made specific reference to the arrangement with Jenny, and specific reference to the fact that Mary would be unhappy about it, because he had not followed her admonition to contact her in advance in future.
[68] Mary was not surprised by any of Bill’s conduct in terms of not being in a hurry, not leaving substantive voicemail messages, and not divulging more information than was strictly necessary. This was all consistent with her prior dealings with Bill.
[69] I accept Mary's evidence in full. Her evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Bill did not intend the advancement of funds to Angela to be a gift. Rather, he intended it to be treated the same way as the advancement to Jenny.
[70] I note that Bill called Mary two days after providing the cheque to Angela. I do not view this evidence as evidence of a change in his intention. I view it as part of the sequence of events of transferring the funds to Angela and find the contents of his call with Mary is indicative of his intention at the time the funds were given to Angela.
[71] Mr. Johnston’s evidence also supports this conclusion. Mr. Johnston acknowledged, and the objective evidence demonstrates, that Bill’s habit over the years was to donate generously. However, these donations were always to registered charities. Bill insisted on Radlett’s statements being audited. Mr. Johnston received documentation for all transactions related to Radlett. Angela acknowledged that Bill told her he would have to tell his accountant about the transaction. Mr. Johnston's evidence that Bill said he wanted to be fair to both sisters, so that neither sister should have an unfair advantage, is consistent with Mary's evidence that Bill wanted the two transactions to be treated in a similar way.
[72] I accept Mr. Johnston’s evidence in full.
[73] Had Bill intended the advancement of funds to Angela to be a gift, there was no reason he would not have told Mr. Johnston, the person who kept Radlett’s books and prepared its financial statements, of this intention. There is also no reason that he would have contacted Mary in respect of the transaction.
[74] I find that the reason the documents evidencing Radlett’s interest in Angela’s property did not get completed was not because Bill did not wish or intend to have the documents completed. Rather, very soon after the purchase he was diagnosed with late-stage pancreatic cancer. His condition deteriorated rapidly; he was non-communicative within about a month and died a few weeks thereafter. Bill’s focus during the last weeks of his life was on moving his substantial holdings into his corporation. Because he did not tie up the loose end about the house documentation before he died does not affect my findings of fact about his intention at the time the funds were advanced.
[75] I find that Angela has not rebutted the presumption and established that the funds were advanced to her as a gift. I find that Bill's intention was for Radlett to maintain a trust ownership in the proportion of the percentage of funds that he had forwarded Angela for the purchase of the property.
Disposition
[76] As indicated, the plaintiffs did not pursue their claim for an equitable mortgage. Angela's position was that if I found the funds were advanced on the same basis as they were advanced to Jenny, the appropriate remedy would be for me to declare that Radlett has a 60% unregistered interest in Angela’s property. No arguments about partition and sale were made. The plaintiffs did not disagree with Angela's submission about the appropriate remedy.
[77] Therefore, I declare that the defendant holds a sixty percent (60%) interest of property known municipally as 1 Mill Walk Court, Richmond Hill, Ontario, legally described as Part Lot 48 Concession 1 Vaughan designated as Part & Plan 65R37056 and Part Block 10, Plan 65M3408 designated as Part 9, Plan 65R37056 in trust for the plaintiffs by reason of the plaintiff Radlett Holdings Inc. through William Humphries having advanced $1,200,000.00 to the defendant for the purchase of the property.
[78] The parties are strongly encouraged to agree upon costs. If they are unable to agree, the plaintiffs may provide to me cost submissions of no more than 5 pages double spaced, along with any offers to settle and a bill of costs, by July 4, 2025. The defendant may respond by July 16, 2025. There will be no reply submissions. Submissions may be sent to my judicial assistant at linda.bunoza@ontario.ca.
Lorne Brownstone
Released: June 26, 2025
[^1]: Because two people involved in this litigation have the same last name, I will refer to most individuals by their first names.
[^2]: Because there are two witnesses named James, I shall refer to these witnesses by their last names.