Court File and Parties

CITATION: 2356802 Ontario Corp. v. 285 Spadina SPV Inc., 2026 ONSC 2356

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-0667377-00CL

DATE: 20260421

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: 2356802 Ontario Corp., Applicant

AND:

285 Spadina SPV Inc. and Ronald Hitti, Respondents

BEFORE: Cavanagh J.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Shahen Alexanian, counsel for the Applicant

Ronald Hitti, in person

HEARD: In Writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] By endorsement released on September 29, 2025, I made orders dismissing the within application (the “Lease Application”) and a related application, (the “Oppression Application”). In my endorsement, I wrote that if a party to either application seeks an order as to costs, such party or parties should arrange an appointment so I can set a timetable for written submissions. A timetable was later set. Written submissions were received.

[2] The Lease Application was brought by 2356802 Ontario Inc. (the “Landlord”) against 285 Spadina SPV Inc. (the “Tenant”) and Ronald Hitti.

[3] Mr. Hitti, as a respondent, seeks an order as to costs of the Lease Application against the Landlord. Mr. Hitti also claims that as an assignee, in trust, of the Tenant’s claim for costs against the Landlord, he is entitled to an order as to costs of the Lease Application against the Landlord to be paid to him in trust.

[4] The Landlord seeks an order as to costs of the Lease Application against the Tenant and Mr. Hitti, jointly and severally.

Procedural Background

[5] I first set out some of the procedural background to the Lease Application.

[6] The Landlord’s Amended Notice of Application is dated October 7, 2021. The Lease Application is concerned with a lease of premises in a building at the northeast corner of Spadina Avenue and Dundas Street in Toronto (the “Lease”) in which the Landlord was the landlord and the Tenant was the tenant. Mr. Hitti was named as a personal respondent. In the Amended Notice of Application, the Landlord asserts that Mr. Hitti has had carriage of the day-to-day operations of the Tenant in the premises. In the Amended Notice of Application, the Landlord claims, among other things, an order terminating the Lease.

[7] On February 17 and 18, 2022, Kimmel J. heard the Lease Application and two other related applications. The Landlord and the Tenant were each represented by counsel. Mr. Hitti was self-represented.

[8] In the Lease Application (and a related application by the Tenant against the Landlord (CV-21-00674331-00CL”)), Kimmel J. released Reasons for Decision dated April 25, 2022. In this decision, at para. 153, Kimmel J. made findings and orders in respect of the relief claimed by the Landlord. Justice Kimmel made findings and orders, at para. 154, in respect of the relief requested by the Tenant. Justice Kimmel made findings and orders in respect of relief sought by Mr. Hitti at para. 155. Justice Kimmel made declarations and orders in respect of identified issues at para. 157. As a result of these declarations and orders, the issues in the Lease Application were not all decided. The Lease was not terminated.

[9] In addition to his costs submissions in respect of the Lease Application, Mr. Hitti makes submissions in respect of costs of an application by the Tenant against the Landlord as CV-21-00674331-00CL. No leave was granted for costs submissions to be made in respect of this application by the Tenant, and I decline to consider any such submissions made by Mr. Hitti.

[10] After the release of this decision, the Lease Application continued. There were many hearings.

[11] On February 13, 2023, Steele J. released an endorsement in which she made an order removing Mr. Hitti and his mother, Raja Farah, as directors and officers of the Tenant and appointing two of the applicants in the Oppression Application as directors and officers and authorizing them to take over the day-to-day operations of the Tenant.

[12] On November 10, 2023, Associate Justice Jolley released her decision on a reference (directed by Kimmel J.) concerning the leased premises. The Tenant, then represented by new counsel, took no position. Mr. Hitti made arguments in support of his position that the Tenant was not responsible to the Landlord for repayment of any of the Construction Allowance advances. Associate Justice Jolley did not find Mr. Hitti personally liable to repay the funds used by the Tenant for non-Landlord work ($1,501,139.64), other than in respect of $3,500 that he was required to reimburse to the Landlord. Associate Justice Jolley released an endorsement concerning costs, and did not award costs against Mr. Hitti.

[13] By an endorsement released on December 29, 2022, Kimmel J. granted the Landlord’s motion to terminate the Lease and stayed the Landlord’s enforcement remedies pending the court’s determination of an upcoming motion in a related (the “Oppression Application”), conditional on the applicants paying rent.

[14] On March 28, 2024, Wilton-Siegel J. denied the Tenant’s motion for relief against forfeiture in respect of the lease.

[15] At a case conference on June 19, 2024, Mr. Hitti filed a motion record in which he sought leave to bring a motion under rule 59.06. In her endorsement, Kimmel J. noted that the motion material seeks much of the same relief that Mr. Hitti had previously advised he was seeking (to set aside her two orders on the basis they were procured by fraud). The motion for leave to bring this motion, and, if leave is granted, the motion itself, was scheduled to be heard on October 1, 2024. Mr. Hitti also sought an interim stay of the two proceedings which was not granted.

[16] On August 30, 2025, an Order was made removing counsel for record for the Tenant. The October 1, 2024 hearing date was vacated where the Tenant was no longer represented by counsel. A new hearing date was to be set at a scheduling appointment to be obtained through the Commercial List Office.

[17] Mr. Hitti’s motion to set aside the Orders of Kimmel J. based on fraud was decided by Black J. on July 18, 2025. The motion was dismissed. Justice Black directed that a case conference be held to consider submissions from the parties as to how to bring these proceedings to an end.

[18] At a case conference held on September 29, 2025, the