Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-24-56-00 Date: 2025-10-01

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

William Cole Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim

- and -

Lisa Laverdure Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Counsel:

• Ian Del Bigio, for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
• Self-Represented, for the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Heard: September 14 & 15, 2025 at Kenora

Before: Madam Justice R.A. Lepere

Reasons for Judgment

Overview

[1] The parties were previously in a romantic relationship and lived together for a period of approximately one year between the end of 2019 and the end of 2020.

[2] Their relationship ended in November 2020 and the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Lisa Laverdure moved out.

[3] During the relationship, the parties acquired certain property which is now the subject of dispute between the parties and forms the subject matter of this litigation.

Main Claim

[4] The parties began a romantic relationship in late 2019 and began living together. Within a few months, Ms. Laverdure had moved into Mr. Cole's home.

[5] On December 29, 2019, a 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 Supercrew XLT truck bearing VIN #1FTEW1EPXKFB66798 (the "Blue Truck") was purchased from a dealership in Winnipeg, Manitoba that was familiar to Mr. Cole. On the sales documentation for the Blue Truck, Ms. Laverdure and Mr. Cole are listed as purchasers. They both signed the Purchase Agreement. Ms. Laverdure signed as the Purchaser and Mr. Cole signed as the Co-Purchaser.

[6] The purchase price for the Blue Truck was $50,148.42. A $1,000.00 deposit was due on delivery with the balance being financed. The parties do not agree on who made the payment of the $1,000.00 deposit. Mr. Cole asserts he did, while Ms. Laverdure asserts she did.

[7] Based on the evidence before me, I am unable to determine who paid the deposit. I find that each party contributed $500.00 towards the deposit.

[8] On the financing documentation for the Blue Truck, Ms. Laverdure is listed as the Purchaser and Mr. Cole is listed as the Co-Purchaser. Therefore, both were responsible for payment of the loan. Ms. Laverdure describes Mr. Cole as a guarantor. Mr. Cole describes himself as a co-owner.

[9] The balance of the purchase price, being $49,148.42 was to be paid via bi-weekly payments of $407.28. Both parties agree that Ms. Laverdure made the payments on the Blue Truck from the time of purchase until on or about April 2022.

[10] The Blue Truck was registered in Ms. Laverdure's name alone. Insurance was obtained for the Blue Truck in Ms. Laverdure's name alone. The Blue Truck was primarily used by Ms. Laverdure during the parties' relationship.

[11] When their relationship ended, Ms. Laverdure took the Blue Truck with her.

[12] Mr. Cole asserts that prior to the end of their relationship in November 2020, he would e-transfer funds to Ms. Laverdure from time to time to assist with the payments for the Blue Truck. Ms. Laverdure asserts that these transfers were simply gifts and were unrelated to the Blue Truck. Mr. Cole did not produce any bank statements to prove the e-transfers to Ms. Laverdure. He asserted that he could not go that far back on his online banking, and only the week prior to trial, attended the bank to get copies of his statements. He acknowledged that they had not been produced as it was too late to do so.

[13] Ms. Laverdure's bank statements from the Alterna Credit Union for the period January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021 show the bi-weekly payment of $407.28 to Ford Credit Canada being regularly withdrawn from her bank account. The payments totalled $16,698.48.

[14] Both parties gave evidence that Ms. Laverdure continued to make payments on the Blue Truck into 2022, but she then fell into arrears. The payments in 2022 made by Ms. Laverdure were as follows:

Date	Amount Owing	Amount Paid	Arrears
January 14, 2022	$407.28	$407.28	$0
January 28, 2022	$407.28	$407.28	$0
February 11, 2022	$407.28	$408.00	+$0.72
February 25, 2022	$407.28	$408.00	+$0.72
March 11, 2022	$407.28	$500.00	+$92.72
March 25, 2022	$407.28	$625.00	+$217.72
April 8, 2022	$407.28	$300.00	$107.28
April 22, 2022	$407.28	$350.00	$57.28
May 6, 2022	$407.28	$0	$407.28
May 20, 2022	$407.28	$0	$407.28
June 3, 2022	$407.28	$0	$407.28
June 17, 2022	$407.28	$0	$407.28
July 1, 2022	$407.28	$0	$407.28
TOTALS	$5,294.64	$3,405.56	$1,889.08

[15] I find that between December 29, 2019, and July 7, 2022, Ms. Laverdure made payments totalling $20,604.04 toward the Blue Truck. This includes half of the $1,000.00 deposit.

[16] With respect to whether Mr. Cole contributed to any of these payments, Ms. Laverdure's bank statements show the receipt of numerous e-transfers. However, the name of the sender of the e-transfers were in some instances blacked out. During cross-examination, the lawyer for Mr. Cole pointed out to Ms. Laverdure that you could see the name though the black marker and it is noted as being "WILLIAM COLE". Once questioned on this, Ms. Laverdure stated that Mr. Cole sent her e-transfers, but they were for gifts, groceries, and to pay his bills as he often worked out of town and needed her assistance to do so while they were living together. The amounts of the e-transfers are not consistent in terms of timing or value with respect to the Blue Truck payments.

[17] When asked about the redactions to the bank statement, Ms. Laverdure stated that she did not view the information as to monies received from Mr. Cole as relevant. When asked who completed the redactions, her version of events changed three times. She first indicated it was friends helping with the preparation of her case. She then indicated it was done by law students at the legal clinic, and then admitted that she had made the redactions.

[18] Based on what can be seen on the bank statements through the redactions between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020, Mr. Cole transferred a total of $8,550.00 to Ms. Laverdure. Mr. Cole's evidence was that these funds were to assist with bills, groceries and the payments on the Blue Truck.

[19] There is not sufficient evidence before me to find that the payments from Mr. Cole to Ms. Laverdure via e-transfer during their relationship were for payment towards the Blue Truck. As such, I do not find that Mr. Cole contributed to the payments for the Blue Truck between December 29, 2019 and July 7, 2022.

[20] In the Spring of 2022, Ms. Laverdure fell into arrears with respect to the payments for the Blue Truck as set out above. Mr. Cole asserts that the Blue Truck was re-possessed by Ford Canada and he was contacted first by phone and then he received a Notice of Intention to Sell and Right to Redeem (the "Notice"). The Notice dated July 8, 2022, indicated the following:

a. there was $35,854.92 left owing on the financing for the Blue Truck;

b. there were arrears of $1,889.08 owing on the Blue Truck; and

c. the Blue Truck would be sold at a public or private sale at any time after 26 days from the date of the notice unless the arrears and any expenses were paid.

[21] The Notice did not contain the amount of any expenses that needed to be paid in addition to the arrears to redeem the Blue Truck and prevent its sale. Upon receiving the Notice, Mr. Cole stated that he was concerned as oftentimes when vehicles are sold in this manner, they are sold for less than fair market value and there could still be money owing on the financing for which he would be responsible. He thereafter made a decision to pay the redemption costs to prevent this from occurring.

[22] Mr. Cole stated that he paid the redemption costs in the amount of $2,960.00. This was comprised of arrears of $1,886.50 and expenses associated with the re-possession in the amount of $1,073.50. Ford Canada then authorized the release of the Blue Truck to him.

[23] Mr. Cole further asserts that he made all remaining payments on the Blue Truck from July 8, 2022, and same was paid off in full as of June 2025. He asserts that these amounts total $35,854.92 which is what was owing on the Blue Truck as of July 8, 2022. His evidence in support of this was as follows:

a. he did not produce his bank statements to show evidence of the payments for the reason noted above;

b. he orally gave evidence that he made all payments since July 2022 and it was paid in full in June 2025; and

c. he relied on documentation from Ford Canada showing the payments being made on the account but there is no indication on the Ford Canada documents as to who made the payments.

[24] Mr. Cole has had possession of the Blue Truck since July 2022. However, it remains registered in the name of Ms. Laverdure. It is uninsured. It is currently located at Mr. Cole's friend's house. He had asserted a claim for storage costs in his claim. However, no evidence was advanced in support of that claim. We have no information as to the current state of the Blue Truck or how it has been stored.

[25] Ms. Laverdure questions whether the Blue Truck was re-possessed and how Mr. Cole came to be in possession of same. She asserts that she paid the redemption fee to Ford Credit Canada and that the Blue Truck should have never been given to Mr. Cole. She asserts that Mr. Cole effectively stole her vehicle and has had no right to retain same since that time.

[26] With respect to the redemption costs, Ms. Laverdure provided a Western Union Customer Receipt in the amount of $2,979.80. This is comprised of $2,964.00 payable to Ford Credit Canada and a fee of $15.00. It is dated July 12, 2022. She asserts that this was the payment she made for the redemption costs to Ford Credit Canada to bring the loan for the Blue Truck into good standing.

[27] However, on the bank statements she produced there is a transaction, which Ms. Laverdure has attempted to cross out, dated August 8, 2022, showing $2,964.00 being deposited into her bank account via cheque. Her explanation for this transaction was that her mother assisted her with the payment to Ford Canada Credit and these are the funds she received from her mother.

[28] I do not accept Ms. Laverdure's evidence on this point. While it appears that she may have paid the redemption costs to Ford Canada Credit via Western Union on July 12, 2022, these funds appear to have been refunded to her on August 8, 2022. While there was no direct evidence on this, I suspect this was because Mr. Cole had also paid the redemption costs. The evidence of Ms. Laverdure that the funds deposited into her account on August 8, 2022, in the amount of $2,964.00 were from her mother cannot be accepted. The cheque was deposited almost a month after she made the Western Union payment. If her mother was assisting her, I would expect that the funds from her mother would have been deposited into her account around July 12, 2022. Furthermore, she has not produced a copy of the cheque and she did not call her mother as a witness. Furthermore, her attempts to black out this information on her bank statements is highly suspicious and suggests to me that she was trying to mislead the court. If the funds were in fact received from her mother, there would be no need to cross this transaction out on her bank statement.

[29] I find that Mr. Cole paid the redemption costs to Ford Credit Canada in the amount of $2,960.00.

[30] With respect to the balance of the payments on the Blue Truck from July 2022 onward, Ms. Laverdure has not produced any evidence to show that she made all or some of these payments, like she did for the payments prior to July 2022. Her bank statements to the end of December 2022 do not show any further bi-weekly payments to Ford Credit Canada after July 2022. She has not produced her bank statements from January 1, 2023 onward. I expect that she would have done so if they show that she made payments towards the Blue Truck during this period of time.

[31] I am also very concerned with the oral evidence given by Ms. Laverdure during the trial and therefore, her credibility. She took issue during the trial with the fact that Mr. Cole did not produce his bank statements for the period of July 2022 to show that he made the payments. When asked on cross-examination if she had made all or some of the payments on the Blue Truck after July 2022, Ms. Laverdure stated, that since Mr. Cole cannot prove that he did, she did make the payments. I find this evidence was disingenuous, untruthful, and was an attempt by Ms. Laverdure to mislead the court to her own advantage.

[32] While I appreciate that Mr. Cole did not produce his bank statements to prove that he made the payments after July 2022, the evidence is clear that the payments were made, that the Blue Truck has been paid for in full, and Ms. Laverdure has not provided any evidence (which would readily be available to her) to prove that she made any of the payments.

[33] I find that Mr. Cole made all payments towards the Blue Truck from July 12, 2022, onward. These payments total $35,854.92. When you add in half of the $1,000.00 deposit, Mr. Cole's total payments towards the Blue Truck are $36,354.92.

[34] In his claim, Mr. Cole seeks an order that the Blue Truck be sold. With respect to the sale proceeds, he seeks an order that the sale proceeds be held in trust pending an order of this Court dividing the sale proceeds, or that the sale proceeds be divided between the parties based on their proportional contribution to the purchase price.

[35] In her Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, Ms. Laverdure asserts that Mr. Cole had no right to redeem the Blue Truck, and it ought to have been returned to her in 2022. She seeks an order returning the Blue Truck to her in the same condition as it was in at the time it was redeemed by Mr. Cole in July 2022.

[36] For the reasons that follow, I order that the Blue Truck be sold with the sale proceeds being divided between the parties as follows:

a. 64% to the Plaintiff, William Cole; and

b. 36% to the Defendant, Lisa Laverdure.

[37] Firstly, the Blue Truck was purchased by both Mr. Cole and Ms. Laverdure. While the vehicle was only registered in the name of Ms. Laverdure, the purchase contract for the Blue Truck identifies both parties as the purchasers and both parties signed the purchase and financing documentation.

[38] Secondly, the parties can clearly no longer own this vehicle together and therefore, it shall be sold. With respect to the purchase price, since they both contributed to same, they should each be entitled to their proportional share of the sale proceeds based on their contributions toward the purchase price. I find that the circumstances under which the parties contributed are irrelevant to the determination of the proportional share.

[39] Thirdly, I cannot order the return of the Blue Truck to Ms. Laverdure as same would be inequitable given the fact that Mr. Cole has paid a significant sum of money towards the purchase price for the Blue Truck.

[40] Lastly, the determination of their proportional shares is calculated as follows. The payments for the Blue Truck totals more than the purchase price of $50,148.42 because of the interest on the financing. To find their proportional shares, I have determined the total payments made by both parties ($56,958.96) and used that figure to determine their proportional contributions based on the total payments made by each of them. To summarize, further to the evidence, Ms. Laverdure paid $20,604.04 and Mr. Cole paid $36,354.92. Ms. Laverdure's proportional share is therefore, 36%. Mr. Cole's proportional share is therefore, 64%.

[41] I would encourage the parties with the assistance of Mr. Del Bigio to work out the terms of the sale of the Blue Truck (i.e. how will it be sold, list price, purchase price, etc.). However, if the parties are unable to agree to on the terms by which the Blue Truck will be sold, they can schedule a one-hour hearing before me for directions. That hearing can proceed via Zoom or as a hybrid hearing if Ms. Laverdure would prefer to attend in-person from Thunder Bay.

Counterclaim

[42] In her counterclaim, Ms. Laverdure asserts additional claims against Mr. Cole in addition to the order sought returning the Blue Truck, which I must determine as follows:

a. damages for any loss in value to the Blue Truck;

b. damages for loss of the 5-year warranty on the Blue Truck due to the fact that it has now expired;

c. damages for damage to her credit due to late payments made by Mr. Cole;

d. damages for damage to her insurance rating;

e. damages for expenses incurred for taxis to get to and from work at $50.00 a day since August 2022;

f. payment in the amount of $4,950.00 being half the value of a Red Ford F-150 and tires purchased during the parties' relationship; and

g. damages in the amount of $1,800.00 for personal property owned by Ms. Laverdure that Mr. Cole disposed of.

[43] For the reasons that follow, Ms. Laverdure's counterclaim is dismissed.

Damages Associated with the Blue Truck (Items (a) to (d))

[44] With respect to the items claimed for (a) to (d) above, Ms. Laverdure's claim is dismissed.

[45] No evidence was presented by Ms. Laverdure to prove that the Blue Truck has been damaged and/or the value of any damage. The suggestion by Ms. Laverdure that the Blue Truck has been improperly stored by Mr. Cole and therefore, damaged, was not proven in any manner.

[46] No evidence was presented regarding the warranty for the Blue Truck (i.e. expiry date) or as to the value of any damages arising from the expiry of same.

[47] No evidence was presented as to any alleged damage to Ms. Laverdure's credit rating and/or that same arises from the late payments by Mr. Cole on the financing for the Blue Truck.

[48] No evidence was presented as to any damage done to Ms. Laverdure's insurance rating.

Damages for the Cost of Transportation since August 2022 (Item (e))

[49] With respect to item (e) above, Ms. Laverdure's claim is dismissed. No evidence was before me to prove that Ms. Laverdure incurred travel expenses. I cannot order damages that are not proven.

Red F-150 Truck (Item (f))

[50] It was the evidence of Ms. Laverdure that she and Mr. Cole purchased a 2007 Red F-150 Truck (the "Red Truck") on October 17, 2020, for a purchase price of $7,900.00. She also asserts that they acquired a new set of tires for the Red Truck valued at $2,000.00. Ms. Laverdure asserts that she paid half of the purchase price for the Red Truck and the tires to Mr. Cole totalling $4,950.00 and now claims same from Mr. Cole.

[51] When asked about the tires, Ms. Laverdure stated that Mr. Cole stole them from the mine where they were working. When asked why she would pay Mr. Cole for something that he stole, she had no explanation.

[52] It was the evidence of Mr. Cole that he purchased the Red Truck by himself. He asserts that the Red Truck was not driveable, and it was his plan to fix it up. It was not registered when Ms. Laverdure left the home. He asserts that he did not steal any tires from his place of employment. He purchased the tires from someone in Fort Frances and paid for them himself.

[53] Ms. Laverdure's name is not on the purchase contract for the Red Truck.

[54] This claim by Ms. Laverdure is dismissed as she has failed to prove that she was a co-owner of the Red Truck and/or that she contributed to the purchase price for same and/or the tires. In other instances, she has produced copies of her bank statements to prove payment of certain items. She has not done so here. I would expect that if that information was available, she would have done so.

Personal Property (Item (g))

[55] Ms. Laverdure claims that when she moved out of Mr. Cole's home at the end of November 2020, she could not fit all of her items in the U-Haul and therefore it was agreed that she would leave behind a washer, dryer and BBQ that she would retrieve at a later date. She gave evidence that Mr. Cole later disposed of these items, and she is seeking damages for the value of these items, totalling $1,800.00.

[56] Mr. Cole asserts that he held onto the items for almost a year, and she never returned. When he was moving out of the home, he did dispose of them as he considered them to be abandoned. He also asserts that the items were old and would have had nominal value.

[57] Ms. Laverdure's claim for damages associated with the disposal of her personal property is dismissed for the reasons that follow.

[58] Firstly, Ms. Laverdure provided no evidence of proof of ownership for the personal property. She called her daughter, Savannah Shields to testify. It was her evidence that these items were removed from a home she was previously occupying with her former partner. She could not remember if the washer, dryer and BBQ belonged to her or Ms. Laverdure.

[59] Secondly, Ms. Laverdure provided no details as to the personal property or evidence in support of the amount of the claim (i.e. purchase price, cost of replacement, etc.).

[60] Lastly, Ms. Laverdure provided no evidence to demonstrate that she made attempts to retrieve the property within a year of leaving the home. She could not have expected Mr. Cole to store the items for her indefinitely.

Costs

[61] If the parties are unable to agree on the issue of costs in this proceeding, they shall schedule a one-hour hearing before me to argue the issue of costs. That hearing shall proceed by Zoom or a hybrid hearing if Ms. Laverdure would prefer to attend in-person from Thunder Bay.

[62] Further to the deadlines provided below, the parties shall file the following in advance of that hearing:

a. at least 10 days before the cost hearing, Mr. Cole shall file written cost submissions not exceeding five (5) pages with the following attached:

i. Bill of Costs; and

ii. any Offers to Settle exchanged by the parties; and

b. at least 5 days before the costs hearing, Ms. Laverdure shall file a summary of her position on costs and any response she has to the cost submissions of Mr. Cole, not exceeding five (5) pages.

[63] For the sake of clarity, any attachment to the cost submissions can be in excess of the set page limit.

[64] If the parties require a hearing for directions regarding the sale of the Blue Truck, that hearing and the cost hearing can be scheduled to be heard on the same date so only one attendance is required by the parties.

The Hon. Madam Justice R.A. Lepere

Released: October 1, 2025