Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: JOAN SYPHUS, CLEMISFORD SYPHUS, IAN BICKERTON, BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN, DAVID BICKERTON, AND JOHN DOE #1-500, Plaintiffs
AND:
2748204 ONTARIO INC. O/A FLEX HOME LOANS, 2758729 ONTARIO INC. O/A COMPLETE HOME COMFORT, MICHAEL YOSHER, SHALBY INVESTMENTS INC., ALBERT KSHOZNICER, BARBARA KSHOZNICER, STEPHEN PRICE AND ASSOCIATES, NITASHA AZHAR MALIK, AND JOHN DOE #501-1000, Defendants
BEFORE: Schabas J.
COUNSEL: David Sterns, Ida Morra Caruso and Adil Abdulla, for the Plaintiffs
Solomon Fischhoff, for the Defendants 2748204 Ontario Inc. O/A Flex Home Loans, Michael Yosher, Shalby Investment Inc., Albert Kshoznicer and Barbara Kshoznicer
Andrea Vitopoulos, for the Defendant Stephen Price and Associates
HEARD: January 23, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1This motion for injunctive relief came on before me today. It followed my endorsement and interim relief granted on January 9, 2026.
2Yesterday, I received a letter from counsel for the plaintiffs that they had been advised that day that the defendants 2748204 Ontario Inc. O/A Flex Home Loans, Michael Yosher, Shalby Investments Inc., Albert Kshoznicer and Barbara Kshoznicer, had retained Mr. Fischhoff to represent them on this matter. Counsel for the plaintiffs also advised that Mr. Fischhoff would be delivering responding materials later that day and that Mr. Fischhoff would be seeking an adjournment which would be opposed by the plaintiffs.
3Mr. Fischhoff did deliver lengthy responding materials later yesterday.
4In light of the lengthy materials filed by Mr. Fischhoff, counsel for the plaintiffs advised this morning that an adjournment would be necessary in order to provide time to file reply evidence and conduct cross-examinations. The plaintiffs requested that the interim relief granted on January 9 continue, but also sought additional interim relief given the delays in having the motion heard on the merits. In particular, given the concern about a more widespread, systemic fraud linked to mortgages that originated with sales tactics of Complete Home Comfort Inc. (“CHC”), the plaintiffs sought two additional orders, as follows:
An order restraining the enforcement of any residential mortgage agreement to which the defendant, 2748204 Ontario Inc. ("Flex Home Loans"), is or was a party, that was originated by Complete Home Comfort Inc., without leave of the court, to be obtained on no less than 21 days' advance notice to the mortgagor.
An order requiring Flex Home Loans or its assignee to notify any mortgagor whose mortgage they seek to enforce that they may contact the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and Pro Bono Ontario upon receipt of a notice of sale and/or motion for leave to enforce, for information and to discuss arrangements for legal representation if they cannot afford to hire a lawyer.
5Additionally, counsel for the plaintiffs advised that they wish to cross-examine Mr. Fischhoff and submitted that Mr. Fischhoff can no longer continue as counsel.
6Mr. Fischhoff consented to the continuation of the relief granted on January 9 pending the return of the motion. However, he objected to the additional relief. He also objected to the request that he be cross-examined and get off the record. Mr. Fischhoff quite sensibly recognized that he needs time to consult counsel about his position in this matter.
7At the conclusion of today’s hearing, I adjourned the matter to a case conference to be convened at 1PM on February 9, 2026. In the meantime, I directed that the plaintiffs deliver any responding material by January 30, 2026, and that cross-examinations on the affidavits be completed the following week ending February 6, 2025.
8This will also give Mr. Fischhoff time to consult counsel and determine his continued role in this matter.
9At the case conference scheduled for February 9, 2026, the parties shall be prepared to address their positions on the motion and, if necessary, a date shortly after February 9, 2026 will be fixed by me for the hearing of the motion. Counsel are reminded, however, of Rule 50.13(d)(i) which permits a judge to make an order for interlocutory relief at a case conference.
10Turning to the relief to be granted today, first, the orders made on January 9, 2026 shall continue, as consented to by Mr. Fischhoff.
11Second, I am prepared to grant, on an interim basis, the relief sought respecting the requirement of 2748204 Ontario Inc.to seek leave of the court before taking any steps to enforce any residential mortgage agreement to which the defendant, 2748204 Ontario Inc., is or was a party, and that was originated by CHC. In my view, the plaintiffs have raised serious concerns about a systemic fraudulent scheme that may be ongoing arising from the CHC sales tactics, and which may involve defendants who are clients of Mr. Fischhoff.
12In reaching this conclusion, I am aware that this order goes beyond the immediate lis between the named plaintiffs and the defendants. However, this order is similar to the purpose of a Norwich order. Courts have the power – indeed arguably the obligation – to assist in the identification of unlawful conduct and the perpetrators of unlawful conduct. Norwich orders requiring the identification of potential defendants are granted in cases with far less serious allegations than are pleaded here, and are often made against non-parties, which is not the case here.
13The broad purpose of a Norwich order, which originates with the decision in Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] A.C. 133 (H.L.), is to assist in uncovering critical information relating to wrongdoing. As the Supreme Court stated in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34, [2017] 1 SCR 824 at para. 31, a Norwich order “can also be used to compel non-parties to disclose information or documents in their possession required by a claimant.” They “may be ordered against non-parties who are not themselves guilty of wrongdoing, but who are so involved in the wrongful acts of others that they facilitate the harm.” The Court observed that in Norwich “this was characterized as a duty to assist the person wronged.” Accordingly, “Norwich supplies a principled rationale for granting injunctions against non-parties who facilitate wrongdoing.” This applies equally to parties who may facilitate wrongdoing. That is this case, as pleaded by the plaintiffs, who have raised a serious issue to be tried.
14The order granted today is not, however, a Norwich order. It does not require identification of potential wrongdoers or other information. That is for another day, based on the plaintiffs’ amended notice of motion. Rather, this order simply requires that the enforcer of these mortgages seek court approval to ensure that the mortgagor has not been a victim of CHC’s sales tactics. This is an interim order and there is no evidence that it will impose any burden on 2748204 Ontario Inc. if it is required in the next few weeks to seek leave from a court. On the other hand, not imposing such a requirement may cause irreparable harm to potential mortgagors.
15I also grant the request that in any case where 2748204 Ontario Inc. or its assignee is enforcing, or seeks to enforce a mortgage, that it inform the mortgagor that they may wish to contact the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly (“ACE”) and Pro Bono Ontario (“PBO”) upon receipt of a notice of sale and/or motion for leave to enforce, for information and to discuss arrangements for legal representation if they cannot afford to hire a lawyer. This imposes no real burden on the defendant 2748204 Ontario Inc. as it is a simple statement to add in materials sent to mortgagors. Mr. Fischhoff agreed at the hearing to go “half way” and add to any notice of sale the statement that a mortgagor may wish to seek legal advice. It creates no additional burden to go all the way and refer to ACE and PBO.
16Mr. Fischhoff raised a concern about costs and the lack of an undertaking as to damages for the additional relief. Given the minor impositions of these additional interim orders, I am prepared to waive any requirement of an undertaking as to damages on an interim basis. This can be revisited at the case conference on February 9 or at the return of the motion. The sufficiency of the undertakings relating to the Syphus and Bickerton properties may also be revisited on the return of the matter.
17Finally, I turn to the request by the plaintiffs to cross-examine Mr. Fischhoff, which then led to them taking the position that Mr. Fischhoff, if a witness in the matter, cannot continue to represent the defendants who retained him. The plaintiffs’ position arises from paragraphs 30 to 33 of Mr. Yosher’s affidavit in which he states, among other things, that “Mr. Fischhoff spoke at length with the Syphuses regarding the mortgage”, and then attaches correspondence written by Mr. Fischhoff in which he makes statements of fact about what was said in that conversation. Mr. Fischhoff requested time to consider his position and to seek counsel. I make no order at this time; however, if the matter is not resolved in the interim, I expect Mr. Fischhoff or other counsel on behalf of the defendants to be in a position to address this issue at the case conference on February 9, 2026.
18Accordingly, I make the following orders:
The interim orders issued January 9, 2026 shall continue;
The parties shall comply with the timetable set out above regarding delivery of reply materials and completion of cross-examinations;
An interim order shall issue restraining the enforcement of any residential mortgage agreement to which the defendant, 2748204 Ontario Inc. ("Flex Home Loans"), is or was a party, that was originated by Complete Home Comfort Inc., without leave of the court, to be obtained on no less than 21 days' advance notice to the mortgagor;
An interim order shall issue requiring Flex Home Loans or its assignee to notify any mortgagor whose mortgage they seek to enforce that they may contact the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and Pro Bono Ontario upon receipt of a notice of sale and/or motion for leave to enforce, for information and to discuss arrangements for legal representation if they cannot afford to hire a lawyer; and
The motion is adjourned to a case conference to be held on February 9, 2026 at 1 p.m., by Zoom.
Paul B. Schabas J.
Date: January 23, 2026