Hotel et al. v. Park et al., 2026 ONSC 2617

CITATION: Hotel et al. v. Park et al., 2026 ONSC 2617

COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-0073-00

DATE: 2026-05-01

BETWEEN:

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

Plaintiffs/Moving Parties

– and –

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

Defendants/Responding Parties

Douglas Judson, for the Plaintiffs/Moving Parties

Mr. Klein, for Ryan Park and Ashleigh-Marie Park

Chris Afonso, for MLT Aikins LLP

Deanna Miller, for Shewchuk Ormiston

HEARD: January 22^nd, 2026, at Kenora, Ontario

The Honourable Madam Justice C.M. Brochu

Decision on Motion

Overview

1The Plaintiffs bring a motion seeking a declaration that the commencement of the Park Action in Toronto by the defendant, Ryan Park, (“Toronto Action”) while the within action (“Kenora Action”) was pending in Kenora was an abuse of process. The Plaintiffs further seek that the Toronto Action be stayed, that the Toronto Action be pleaded within the Kenora Action in counterclaim and crossclaims, as well as a timetable for the exchange of pleadings.

2In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek an order transferring the Toronto Action from Toronto to Kenora and consolidating it with the Kenora Action.

3In the further alternative, they seek an order that the matters be tried together in Kenora.

4The motion is opposed by the Defendants, Ryan Park and Ashleigh-Marie Park (“Park Defendants”). The defendants, Shewchuk Ormiston LLP and MLT Aikins LLP do not take a position.

5The Park Defendants are seeking the same reliefs as the Plaintiffs as it relates to the Kenora Action, advancing that the proper venue is Toronto.

6The underlying dispute in both Actions concerns a camp property located near Kenora, identified by PIN 42150-2259 and legally described as: PCL 29250 SEC DKF; PT BLK A PL M181 PT1 KR2133; T/W PT 9 & 10 KR383, PT 3 KR2103 and PT 2 KR2133 as in LT 106967; District of Kenora (the “property”).

The Parties and Summary of Events

7For the purpose of this motion, it is not necessary to delve into the details of the dispute and litigation. However, it is beneficial to outline the parties and relevant events/dates as it relates to the property transfer and the proceedings.

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants

8Robert Hotel, in his capacity as trustee for the estate of Jacqueline Cycon, is a resident of Winnipeg, Manitoba.

9Kalyle Cycon, is the surviving son of Jacqueline and Richard Cycon, and the main beneficiary of the Estate. He is a resident of Winnipeg, Manitoba.

10Ryan and Ashleigh-Marie Park are the registered joint owners of the property. They are residents of Woodlands, Manitoba.

11MLT Aikins LLP is a law firm with an office in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

12Shewchuk Ormiston LLP is a law firm with an office in Kenora, Ontario.

13Counsel for the Plaintiffs is located in Fort Frances.

14Counsel for the Defendants is located in Toronto.

Summary of Events – Transfer of the Property

15Richard Cycon and Jacqueline Cycon were spouses of one another. Richard passed away on March 30, 2024. Jacqueline passed away on April 13, 2024.

16On October 18, 2018, the property was transferred from Richard as sole owner to Richard and Jacqueline.

17On April 15, 2024, at 16:43, a Survivorship Application was registered and the property by right of survivorship was transferred to Jacqueline. On that same day at 16:45, a transfer was registered on the property from Jacqueline to Ryan and Ashleigh-Marie Park, as joint tenants. The registrations were affected by Shewchuk Ormiston LLP.

18The Land Transfer Tax Statements indicate that there was no consideration for the transaction between Jacqueline and the Parks.

The Proceedings

19On October 1, 2025, the Plaintiffs commenced the Kenora Action, CV-25-0073-00 against the Defendants by issuing a Notice of Action (“NOA”) in Kenora.

20The Plaintiffs in the Kenora Action are Robert Hotel, in his capacity as trustee of the estate of Jacqueline Cycon, deceased, and Kalyle Cycon. The Defendants are Ryan Park, Ashleigh-Marie Park, Shewchuk Ormiston LLP, and MLT Aikins LLP.

21The NOA advanced a claim, amongst others, for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (“CPL”), production of documents from the Defendants relating to the transfer of the property, setting aside the transfer from Jacqueline to the Parks and vesting the property to the Estate or Kalyle. There is also a claim for damages and costs.

22On October 2, 2025, Wojciechowski J. addressed the Plaintiffs’ motion for a CPL and injunctive relief. The motion was adjourned to October 23, 2025. He made an order preventing any dealings with the property pending the disposition of the Plaintiffs’ motion for a CPL and for document productions.

23On November 4, 2025, Newton RSJ. made an order issuing a CPL with respect to the property. The CPL was registered on title to the property on November 21, 2025.

24On November 6, 2025, Ryan, commenced the Toronto Action, CV-25-00755148-00.

25The Plaintiff in the Toronto Action is Ryan Park. The Defendants are Robert Hotel, in his capacity as trustee of the estate of Jacqueline Cycon, deceased, MLT Aikins LLP, and Shewchuk Ormiston LLP.

26The Toronto Action advanced a claim, amongst others, for a declaration that Jacqueline made an inter vivos transfer of the property to the Plaintiff, as well as a vesting order to Ryan and Ashleigh-Marie. In the alternative, the Toronto Action sought a declaration that the Plaintiff holds title to the property based on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. In the further alternative, it sought damages for monies expended in the property or based on quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. There is also a claim for payment of the specific bequest against the law firm defendants, and a claim for damages for breach of contract and negligence.

27On November 27, 2025, Newton RSJ. made an endorsement that the Statement of Claim in the Kenora Action be delivered by January 9, 2026.

28On January 9, 2026, the Plaintiffs served their Statement of Claim in the Kenora Action, and their Statement of Defence, Counterclaim, and Crossclaim in the Toronto Action. The Plaintiff’s counterclaim and crossclaims in the Toronto Action incorporate by reference the pleadings contained in the Statement of Claim from the Kenora Action.

Issues

29The crux of this matter is to determine the venue in which these proceedings should be held.

30The Plaintiffs and the Park Defendants are seeking that the proceeding be transferred in Kenora and Toronto respectively. This relief is being claimed pursuant to r. 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Usually, these motions would be heard in writing. The Plaintiffs instead brought a motion which was heard in the Regional Motions Court as they are foremost seeking an order that the commencement of the Toronto Action was an abuse of process.

31For reason on which I will elaborate below, this matter is best addressed under r. 13.1.02. In the circumstances, I have therefore decided to address in priority the issue of whether the Toronto Action should be transferred to Kenora.

1. Should the Toronto action be transferred to Kenora?

Rule 13.1.02(2)

32Rule 13.1.02(2) provides that a court may, on any party’s motion, make an order to transfer the proceeding to a county other than the one where it was commenced, if the court is satisfied:

a) that it is likely that a fair hearing cannot be held in the county where the proceeding was commenced; or

b) that a transfer is desirable in the interest of justice, having regard to,

i. where a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to the claim occurred,

ii. where a substantial part of the damages were sustained,

iii. where the subject-matter of the proceeding is or was located,

iv. any local community’s interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding,

v. the convenience of the parties, the witnesses and the court,

vi. whether there are counterclaims, crossclaims, or third or subsequent party claims,

vii. any advantages or disadvantages of a particular place with respect to securing the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits,

viii. whether judges and court facilities are available at the other county, and

ix. any other relevant matter.

33Subsection (2)(a) has no application. There is no suggestion that a fair hearing cannot be held in either location.

34The case law has established that the above factors are to be applied holistically. No one of the factors are more important than the other. They are to be examined together and balanced in order to determine whether the transfer is desirable in the interest of justice. A balancing of the factors is not a numerical or mathematical counting exercise: see Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Other End Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 85, at paras. 13-15 and 26; see also Canine Stars Inc. v. Dolinski, 2025 ONSC 5822, at paras. 22-36.

Analysis and Discussion

(i) where a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to the claim occurred; (ii) where a substantial part of the damages were sustained, and (iii) where the subject-matter of the proceeding is or was located

35This is a matter in which the substantial part of the events or omissions are likely split between Kenora and Winnipeg.

36The property that is the subject matter of this litigation is located in Kenora. The transfer of the property to the Park Defendants was affected in Kenora and registered in the land titles office in Kenora.

37The improvements the Parks Defendants indicate were made to the property had to be carried out in Kenora where the property is located. As a result, the claim in damages for money expended to manage, maintain and improve the property, is related to the property itself.

38On the other hand, it is likely that discussions regarding the property and the intent to transfer the property could have occurred elsewhere than Kenora.

39As it relates to the claims involving the law firms, MLT Aikins LLP is in Winnipeg, and Shewchuk Ormiston LLP is in Kenora.

40It is somewhat premature at this time to determine the issue of jurisdiction and law of contract that may govern some of these issues. It has been made clear by counsel for MLT Aikins LLP that jurisdiction is a live issue (between Manitoba and Ontario), which will likely be the issue of another motion in this matter.

(iv) any local community’s interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding

41There is no suggestion that any local community has any interest in the subject-matter of the proceedings.

(v) the convenience of the parties, the witnesses and the court

42It is advanced by the Park Defendants that it is most convenient to have the proceeding in Toronto as it is easier for the parties that live in Winnipeg to access Toronto than Kenora. Basically, the argument is that given all counsel for the defendants are located in Toronto, it is easier for the parties to travel to Toronto than everyone having to travel to Kenora. The exception being counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Shewchuk Ormiston LLP defendant.

43The travel argument has less weight post COVID-19 than it originally had, given that most litigation steps prior to trial are held remotely via zoom. As a result, it is likely that all of the pre-trial steps will be done remotely without any need for parties to travel.

44It is premature at this time to determine convenience of the witnesses for trial, as they are not known at this time. The matter is in its early stage and pleadings are not closed.

(vi) whether there are counterclaims, crossclaims, or third or subsequent party claims

45All claims, crossclaims and counterclaims are related to the same subject matter and would necessarily be required to be heard together.

(vii) any advantages or disadvantages of a particular place with respect to securing the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits

46There is no evidence on whether the matter could be heard more expeditiously in one venue or the other. The Park Defendants point to the fact that Toronto has an Estates List and Rule 77 Case Management. However, no evidence was offered as to whether such would result in a more expeditious proceeding. It is noted that case management functions can be exercised by the court outside of specialized lists and case management regions.

47The Plaintiffs advanced that costs awarded by the courts in the Kenora jurisdiction are most often on a different and more reasonable scale, in line with the expenses to the Plaintiffs, than costs based on Toronto counsel’s billing rates and elevated costs based on the difference in rates. In this regard, the Park Defendants counter that the principles in awarding costs should be the same irrespective of the venue.

48The issue of costs practices and rates, which do differ from region to region, in my view should not be determinative of the venue.

(viii) whether judges and court facilities are available at the other county

49There are judges and court facilities available in both locations.

(ix) any other relevant matter

50This is a case in which the only connection to Toronto is counsel for the Park Defendants. Most of the parties are residents of Winnipeg. The property is located in Kenora. The claim in damages, for maintenance and expenses, originated in Kenora as it is directly associated to the property and its management and improvement.

51I find that Toronto has no “rational connection to the matters at issue in the proceeding”. None of the parties are from the Toronto region and neither is the subject property, which is at the heart of this litigation. It would make no sense to have litigation in Toronto in which the main subject matter of litigation is related to property located approximately 1800 kilometers away.

52In these circumstances, I find that a transfer is desirable “in the interest of justice”.

53Accordingly, the Toronto Action shall be transferred to Kenora.

2. Consolidation of Proceedings

54Rule 6.01 governs consolidation or hearing together of proceedings:

6.01 (1) Where two or more proceedings are pending in the court and it appears to the court that,

(a) they have a question of law or fact in common;

(b) the relief claimed in them arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; or

the court may order that,

(d) the proceedings be consolidated, or heard at the same time or one immediately after the other; or

(e) any of the proceedings be,

(i) stayed until after the determination of any other of them, or

(ii) asserted by way of counterclaim in any other of them.

(2) In the order, the court may give such directions as are just to avoid unnecessary costs or delay and, for that purpose, the court may dispense with service of a notice of listing for trial and abridge the time for placing an action on the trial list.

55In this matter, both actions have a question of law and fact in common, and the relief claimed in them arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences.

56These matters are essentially the same, one having been commenced in Toronto and the other one in Kenora.

57Both actions are at the initial pleading stage. There is no indication that one action would cause delay to the other action.

58There is similarity of the parties. It is noted that the Toronto Action does not include Ashleigh-Marie Park and Kalyle Cycon as parties. This distinction is not determinative and, in my view, does not detract from the fact that they are both dealing with the same issues. The parties are represented by the same lawyers in both actions. In fact, Ashleigh is the spouse of Ryan and is represented by the same counsel. Kalyle is a Plaintiff in the Kenora Action and is represented by the same counsel as the Estate.

59Having these matters heard separately would be a duplication of proceedings and risk resulting in inconsistent results.

60I find that it will save time and costs in having these matters consolidated at this early stage of the proceedings.

3. Is the Commencement of the Toronto Action an Abuse of Process?

61Given my decision above, it is not truly necessary to address this issue. I will do so briefly for completeness.

62The Plaintiffs advance that the Toronto Action is an abuse of process as it was commenced when it was known by Park that proceedings had been commenced in Kenora. The Plaintiffs explained that the reason the proceeding was commence by NOA was the need to obtain a CPL and to obtain documents from counsel that had been responsible for the drafting and transfer of the property. They argue that it would have been evident that the filing of a Statement of Claim was imminent.

63On their part, the Park Defendants state that although the Plaintiffs had filed an NOA, they did not issue their Statement of Claim within the required 30 days. It is argued that it was therefore necessary for Park to bring the Toronto Action in order to avoid any prejudice of a limitation period defence being raised.

64It is for this reason that Park states having issued his claim on November 6, 2025, in Toronto. It is advanced that at that time there was no claim to plead to in Kenora.

65There is no denying that it was only after the Park claim was filed in Toronto, that the Plaintiffs moved for an extension of time to issue its Statement of Claim.

66In my view, this could have been avoided if counsel for the Park Defendants would have reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel and inquired if and when they would be issuing their Statement of Claim. Instead, they chose to issue the Toronto Action.

67I am not prepared to find that this resulted in an abuse of process. There was a proceeding commenced in Kenora. However, the Plaintiffs had not, within the required period of time, issued their Statement of Claim.

68To a certain extent, both parties are attempting to gain a litigation advantage and/or the upper hand in this matter. The Park Defendants are trying to use the lack of the Statement of Claim to argue that there was no action, therefore opening the door to the Park Defendants, and Park as a Plaintiff in the Toronto Action to choose the venue. And the Plaintiffs are attempting to gain a cost advantage by requesting a declaration that the Toronto Action is an abuse of process.

69At the end of the day, I find that this is a matter of proper venue and consolidation. That is how I have addressed this matter.

Summary and Conclusion

70In the circumstances of this case, I find that it is in the interest of justice that the Toronto Action be transferred to Kenora and that the matters be consolidated.

71I encourage the parties to discuss a timetable for the exchange of pleadings and other preliminary issues, if required. In this regard, I understand that there may also be a need for another motion to address the issue of jurisdiction as it relates to the MLT Aikins LLP defendant.

Costs

72There shall be no costs award on this motion. Although the Plaintiffs were successful in having the Toronto Action transferred to Kenora, they did not succeed with their request to strike the Toronto Action as an abuse of process.

73This is a matter in which both parties were attempting to gain some form advantage. In my view, it is appropriate that the parties bear their own costs.

The Hon. Madam Justice C. M. Brochu

Released: May 1, 2026