Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-25-0068-00 Date: 2025-11-04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

ROBERT HOTEL, in his capacity as trustee of the estate of JACQUELINE CYCON, deceased, and KALYLE CYCON

Moving Parties

- and -

RYAN PARK, ASHLEIGH-MARIE PARK, SHEWCHUK ORMISTON LLP, and MLT AIKINS LLP

Responding Parties

Counsel:

• D. Judson, for the moving party Kalyle Cycon
• D. Wiebe, for the moving party Robert Hotel
• M. Klein, for the responding parties Ryan Park and Ashleigh-Marie Park
• C. Afonso, for the responding party MLT Aikins LLP
• No-one appearing, for responding party Shewchuk Ormiston LLP

Heard: October 23, 2025, at Thunder Bay, Ontario

Justice: W.D. Newton R.S.J.

Decision On Motion

Overview

The moving parties move for an order allowing the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation ("CPL") against certain recreational real estate near Kenora, Ontario (the "premises").

[1] The respondents Ryan and Ashleigh-Marie Park oppose this motion, arguing that there should be a full hearing to determine whether a CPL should issue.

[2] For the reasons that follow, an order allowing the CPL shall issue.

The Facts

The Parties

[3] Robert Hotel is the executor and estate trustee of Jacqueline Cycon pursuant to her will. Jacqueline Cycon died on April 13, 2024. Her husband had died two weeks prior. They jointly owned the premises.

[4] Kalyle Cycon is the only child of Jacqueline Cycon and a beneficiary under her will.

[5] Ryan Park was a former co-trustee of the Estate of Jacqueline Cycon. He renounced his appointment on October 12, 2024. Ashleigh-Marie Park is Ryan's spouse, hereinafter "the Parks".

[6] MLT Aikins LLP ("MLT") is a law firm in Winnipeg.

[7] Shewchuk Ormiston LLP ("Shewchuk") is a law firm in Kenora.

Jacqueline Cycon's Will

[8] Jacqueline Cycon's will provided that her real property, including the premises, was to be given to Kalyle, that certain bequests of money were to be made to Kalyle, Mr. Hotel and Mr. Park, and that the residue of the estate be held in Trust for Kalyle, with Mr. Hotel as sole trustee.

Transfer of the Premises

[9] On April 15, 2024, two days after Jacqueline Cycon's death, the premises were transferred through a right of survivorship by the Shewchuk firm. The same day, the premises were transferred from Jacqueline Cycon to the Parks, again by the Shewchuk firm. The Estate Trustees were never registered on title.

The Estate Trustee's Inquiries Concerning the Transfer

[10] On April 28, 2025, the law firm, Taylor McCaffrey LLP ("Taylor") representing the Estate Trustee, Mr. Hotel, wrote to MLT requesting information regarding the transfer of the premises. MLT referred Taylor to Shewchuk. After receiving a similar request from Taylor, Shewchuk responded that they acted as agents for MLT.

[11] Transfer documents received from Shewchuk indicated that Shewchuk acted for both the transferor (Jacqueline Cycon) and the transferees (the Parks) and that the transfer was a gift.

[12] Subsequently, Taylor requested confirmation of instructions from Jacqueline Cycon from both Shewchuk and MLT. MLT eventually responded that it did not act for Jacqueline Cycon, but only the Parks. MLT stated that Jacqueline Cycon signed a deed of transfer to the Parks. To date, no deed of transfer to the Parks has been produced.

The Motion for A Certificate Of Pending Litigation ("CPL") and other Relief

[13] By motion returnable October 2, 2025, the moving parties sought an order for a CPL against the premises and an order for the production of all documents regarding the real property transfer. That motion was made on notice to the respondents.

[14] On October 2, Wojciechowski J. adjourned the motion to October 23, 2025, to allow the Parks to secure representation and file responding material and made an interim order prohibiting the transfer or encumbrance of the premises pending the return of the motion.

The Responding Affidavit of Ryan Park

[15] In an affidavit sworn October 21, 2025, Ryan Park deposed that he dealt with the MLT law firm regarding the transfer of property from Mrs. Cycon to him and his wife, that MLT prepared the documents, and that his mother, Carol Rowe, took the documents to Mrs. Cycon for execution and witnessed Mrs. Cycon's signature on those documents the day before Mrs. Cycon's death. The transfer documents were not attached as exhibits to this affidavit.

[16] He also deposed that Kalyle Cycon and the Estate Trustee, Mr. Hotel, were aware of the transfer of the premises and that he was in negotiations with Kalyle Cycon to resolve this dispute.

Positions of the Parties

[17] The Parks seek a further adjournment seeking cross-examinations of the deponents of the affidavits filed by the moving parties and a long motion to determine whether a certificate of pending litigation should issue.

[18] The moving parties submit the continuing the order of Wojciechowski J. is not sufficient protection for the moving parties as it is not notice to strangers to this action.

[19] MLT takes no position.

[20] All parties agree that the issue of production of documents can be decided at a later date.

Analysis and Disposition

[21] It is unfortunate that counsel at MLT did not respond unequivocally to requests from counsel for the Estate Trustee regarding the transfer of premises. Prompt and unequivocal communication could have solved some issues and would have reduced delay and legal fees incurred by all.

[22] Given what is, on its face, an improper real estate transaction after the death of the transferor and the failure to produce the deeds of transfer prepared by MLT as stated by Mr. Park, the index of suspicion is high and justified the bringing of this motion.

[23] That the motion is made on notice does not change the purpose of the certificate of pending litigation procedure. This process may be brought without notice to avoid delay of registration on title. The purpose is to put prospective purchasers or lenders on notice that there is an issue about ownership. To suggest that a full hearing is necessary defeats that purpose. While the current order is some protection, it is not the protection given by a CPL.

[24] I accept that full disclosure is required and whether or not there has been full disclosure cannot be determined on the record before me.

[25] The test for granting a CPL is low and met on the material before me.

[26] The issue of costs is left to the judge finally disposing of this action.

[27] If the disclosure issue is not resolved, and I see no reason why it should not be promptly resolved, that aspect of the motion is adjourned to motions court of November 27, 2025.

The Hon. Justice W.D. Newton R.S.J.

Released: November 4, 2025