COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00003231
DATE: 20260327
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: DONALD LEONARD PARSONS, Applicant
AND:
JENNIFER PARSONS, Respondent
LISA LOEVENMARK, Respondent/Moving Party
BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice D. Kellway
COUNSEL: Andrew Pinsky Counsel for the Moving Party Loevenmark
Perla Smith, Counsel for Donald Leonard Parsons
HEARD: March 24, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The moving party, Loevenmark, brought a motion for the following:
a. a Declaration and Order that the Applicant, Donald Parsons, has no standing to bring on behalf of his former wife the Respondent, Jennifer Parsons, civil claims of an alleged constructive trust in the real estate owned by the Respondent Lisa Loevenmark;
b. An Order to extract Donald Parsons’ personal civil claims of an alleged constructive trust in the real estate owned by Lisa Loevenmark from Donald Parson’s Notice of Application brought against his former wife and the Respondent, Jennifer Parsons;
c. An Order that Donald Parsons’ personal civil claims of an alleged constructive trust in real estate owned by Lisa Loevenmark shall be brought by a statement of claim in an action according to the Rules of Civil Procedure;
d. An Order that the Family Law Rules do not apply to Donald Parsons’ personal civil claims of an alleged constructive trust in the real estate owned by the Respondent, Lisa Loevenmark; and
e. An Order seeking costs of this motion and costs incidental to the motion, plus HST to the moving party Loevenmark paid by both the Applicant Donald Parsons and his lawyer, Perla Smith, severally and jointly, forthwith.
[2] The issues the moving party raises in this motion were already decided in the Order contained in the Endorsement of Justice Bruhn, dated November 7, 2025.
[3] Madam Justice Bruhn’s endorsement reads in part, as follows:
The Applicant has filed a 14B motion seeking the following Orders:
An Order that this court hear the claims made in the within proceeding together in the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court. In the alternative, if a regular motion is required, the Applicant requests such motion be heard in Superior Court of Justice, Family Court.
An Order that the Applicant be permitted to communicate with the Respondent Lisa Denise Loevenmark and/or her legal counsel, via email.
An Order that the Respondent Lisa Loevenmark pay the Applicant’s costs of this motion. In the alternative, that costs of this motion be paid by her legal counsel, Mr. Pinsky, personally.
The Applicant’s 14B motion material was served on both Respondents through counsel on September 19, 2025.
The first Respondent has filed a response to the 14B motion, however, the second Respondent has not.
The first Respondent states that she is not opposed to the Applicant’s requests, although she seeks her costs of this motion.
In my view, the Applicant’s trust claims have been brought in the correct court because the issues of the trust claim and equalization are connected in terms of the parties involved and the evidence. In addition, the outcome of the trust claim impacts on the equalization claim. Had the claim been brought in civil court, it would have been appropriate to combine the proceedings to avoid duplicative proceedings and in the interests of dealing with the case justly.
It is reasonable that the Applicant be permitted to communicate with the second Respondent’s counsel or with the second Respondent, should she become self-represented, via email. This allows for timely and economical communication between counsel/parties.
[4] Despite having received notice of the motion before Justice Bruhn, counsel for the moving party Loevenmark chose not to attend that motion and not to make any submissions. He describes that these were steps deliberately taken so as to not “attorn to the jurisdiction.”
[5] Justice Bruhn specifically provided the Moving Party Loevenmark (referred to by Justice Bruhn as the second Respondent) with additional time in her endorsement as follows:
Given that the issue of the appropriate Court was in dispute and the second Respondent may not have filed an Answer yet, I will allow the second Respondent 21 days from the release of this Endorsement to serve and file her Answer.
[6] Nothing was served and filed by Louvenmark or her counsel in response to Justice Bruhn’s Endorsement. The decision of Justice Bruhn was not appealed, nor did counsel for the Moving Party Louvenmark seek to vary it. A copy of the endorsement was not included by the Moving Party in its motion record before this Court on this motion, nor was I taken to its contents in counsel for the moving party Loevenmark’s submissions. Counsel for Loevenmark took the position that he was not hiding the decision of Justice Bruhn as it was included in the Responding Party Donald Parsons’ motion record and that once again, the Moving Party Loevenmark did not wish to attorn to the jurisdiction before Justice Bruhn.
[7] Principles regarding duplicity are not only contained in the Endorsement of Justice Bruhn, the very principles of duplicity and res judicata apply in the motion before this Court.
[8] Justice Bruhn has already determined that the issue of the trust claim shall be heard in Family Court.
[9] Once a final decision is rendered, that issue should not be relitigated, subject to following the proper appellate route.
[10] Our appellate courts have made the principle clear that, “an issue, once decided, should not generally be re-litigated to the benefit of the losing party and the harassment of the winner” and that “duplicative litigation, potential inconsistent results, undue costs and inconclusive proceedings should be avoided”, (see Bryton Capital Corp. GP Ltd. v. CIM Bayview Creek Inc., 2023 ONCA 363 at para 41 and Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44 at para 18.
[11] In light of the above, in addition to this Court being mindful to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings, and considering the requirement of s. 21.8(1) of the Courts of Justice Act that where the Family Court has jurisdiction, proceedings “shall be commenced, heard and determined in the Family Court”, I am denying the requested relief sought in the present motion.
[12] I will allow the parties to submit a bill of costs and any submissions on the issue of costs, limited to 3 pages, double spaced, within 7 days of the posting of this Endorsement, in order for this Court to address the issue of costs on this motion.
Justice D. Kellway
Date: March 27, 2026