Curciarello v. Curciarello, 2026 ONSC 2640

CITATION: Curciarello v. Curciarello, 2026 ONSC 2640

COURT FILE NO.: CV-26-00155-000

DATE: 2026-05-04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

GIUSEPPE CURCIARELLO

Applicant

– and –

ANTONIO CURCIARELLO, as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Pina Curciarello, and ANTONIO CURCIARELLO, in his Personal Capacity

Respondents

COUNSEL:

E. Fleming, for the Applicant

No one appearing for the Respondent

HEARD: April 30, 2026, in Thunder Bay, Ontario

BEFORE: Mr. Justice F. Bruce Fitzpatrick

1Guiseppe Curciarello (“Guiseppe”) applies for an order seeking a declaration that his now deceased mother was strictly a legal holder of title and was at no time a beneficial owner of condominium unit 3 located at 96 High Street North in Thunder Bay (the “condo”). The application further seeks an order vesting title in the condo solely in Guiseppe’s name and order the Ontario Land Registry to be rectified to reflect Giuseppe as the sole and absolute freehold owner of the Property.

2The affidavit material filed in support of the application by Guiseppe deposes that the condo was purchased in May 2021. At that time, in order to qualify for a mortgage with the Royal Bank, Guiseppe was required to register another mortgagor on title together with himself. At the date of purchase the capacity in which both persons took title was not registered. Accordingly, title to the condo was registered by Guiseppe and his mother by the presumption as being tenants in common.

3Guiseppe’s mother died January 27, 2026.

4Guiseppe’s affidavit made a number of assertions about his and his mother’s intentions that the condo was to be held in joint tenancy. In my view this was self serving and not persuasive to rebut the evidence of the way title is actually registered in the provincial land records for this particular piece of real property.

5There also was no express mention in the affidavit concerning the state of the Royal Bank mortgage that caused Guiseppe’s mother to go on title in the first place. In the course of argument, counsel ultimately advised that the mortgage was still in place but was in the process of being renewed.

6The Court was concerned that granting the relief requested would or could adversely impact the interest of the Royal Bank as mortgagee. To convey title out of the name of one party potentially deprives the mortgagee of recourse against the mother’s estate. Without evidence from the Royal Bank as to their position, I am not prepared to grant the relief requested. I was not persuaded by counsel’s argument that “this is done all the time”. Perhaps it is. But it doesn’t make it proper in the face of what I understand is being requested and the absence of evidence from a party with a secured interest in the property. Filing evidence of the Royal Bank’s position on the relief requested will satisfy the Court that all affected parties have been given notice of what is proposed when such important relief as vesting title in the name of one party alone is sought.

7The application is adjourned to a future motion date where further and better affidavit material can be filed, optimally a consent from a solicitor acting on behalf of the Royal Bank to the relief requested.

8As I understand from counsel that Guiseppe is the process of either renewing or refinancing, counsel is to ensure a copy of this endorsement is to be sent forthwith to counsel representing the Royal Bank.

9No costs for today’s attendance.

The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick

Released: May 4, 2026