CITATION: Dworak et al v. Romerein et al, 2026 ONSC 3389
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE:
Daniel Joseph Dworak; Ariane Williamson; Ariane Williamson, as Estate Trustee for the estate of Linda Williamson, Deceased
Applicants
AND:
Diane Romerein, Matthew Romerein, Emma Romerein;, Wendy Franks, Andrea Franks, Emelia Franks
Respondents
BEFORE:
Justice Carissima Mathen
COUNSEL:
Peter I. Waldmann, for the Applicants
William A. Chalmers, Matthew Patterson, for the Respondents
HEARD:
June 8, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1The parties each bring urgent motions. After several case conferences, Justice Des Rosiers pushed back a previous motion date in May, and set a single hearing to deal with both motions.
2This is an intra-family dispute involving a company called Joseph Dworak Limited (“JDL”) and several individuals who: hold shares in the company, are or claim to be directors of the company; and/or claim to be entitled to hold shares in the company.
3The parties are involved in several different applications including:
a) An Application commenced in 2024 by Emilia Franks and Diane Romerein seeking oppression remedies against Daniel Dworak and Ariane Williamsons, and a wind-up of JDL;
b) An Application commenced in 2025 by Daniel Dworak and Ariane Williamson (purportedly in her capacity as estate trustee for the Estate of Linda Williamson) seeking relief against Emeilia Franks et al, related primarily to a special meeting of the shareholders of JDL that occurred in August 2025;
c) A wrongful death action brought in 2025 by Daniel Dworak against Diane Romerein, Emilia Franks and Georgian Bay Hospital in relation to the death of Linda Williamson.
d) An application in the Newmarket court filed sometime in the spring of 2026, by Ariane Williamson, for an order declaring her Estate Trustee for the Estate of Linda Williamson. The Respondents have filed an objection to that application.
4On the motion before me, the Applicants sought, among other things:
a) An order appointing Ariane Williamson as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Linda Williamson.
b) An injunction to prevent the Respondents from dealing with certain properties which the Applicants say is required to prevent the Respondents from winding up the company JDL which is a core subject of dispute between them.
c) An order authorizing Daniel Joseph Dworak to assume management responsibilities for the company JDL in the interim.
5At the hearing before me, the Applicant provided a different order that seeks different forms of injunctive relief – much of which was premised on the parties entering into mediation.
6The Respondents sought, among other things:
a) An Order lifting the mandatory stay of proceedings required by Rule 9.03(6) because one of the named Applicants is an estate for which there is no Litigation Trustee.
b) An Order appointing a third party Litigation Trustee for that Estate.
c) An Order authorizing the Respondents to continue to manage the properties owned by the company JDL.
7The primary issue addressed at the hearing before me is the fact that Rule 9.03 mandates a stay of proceedings because the Estate of Linda Williamson is not properly constituted. Linda Williamson died intestate, so an order is required. That is what the parties are currently litigating in Newmarket.
8In the interests of expediency, I will not recount the lengthy history of these proceedings, Suffice to say that I am satisfied that, at present, all proceedings commenced by or against the Estate of Linda Williamson are stayed by virtue of Rule 9.03.
9Having reviewed the court file and having received representations from both counsel, I am satisfied that there is currently no court order relating to JDL or anyone else named as a party in the motions brought before me today.
10I have decided that the parties shall return before me on July 27, 2026 for a short motion to consider the appointment of a Litigation Trustee for the Estate of Linda Williamson in order that the affected applications may move forward. The motion is limited to that issue.
11In the meantime, the parties have agreed to mediate. Given the strictures of Rule 9.03, I will not issue a court order to that effect. I will simply note that:
a) Today, the Applicants provided the names of 3 possible mediators to the Respondents.
b) The parties agree to make best efforts to secure a mediator within 7 days and to mediate as soon as is practicable thereafter with a view to completing it by July 27, 2026.
c) Given that a next step in the Newmarket proceeding is for the Applicants to move for directions, they agree to do so, and will apprise that court of the come-back hearing before me on July 27, 2026.
ORDER
12In conclusion, I make the following order:
a) This motion is adjourned to July 27, 2026, before me, for two hours. Consistent with court practice, the motion shall be virtual.
b) The appearance on July 27, 2026, shall be directed to whether someone should be appointed as Litigation Trustee for the Estate of Linda Williamson and, if so, who.
c) Other than facta, discussed below, no additional materials may be filed for the July 27, 2026 motion.
d) The parties will ensure that two additional bundles are created in Case Centre: one for materials related to the Newmarket application; and one for the comeback appearance in July. They shall transfer existing materials to those bundles as appropriate. The facta for July 27, 2026, shall be uploaded to the appropriate bundle. They shall also be sent to my assistant in Word format.
e) The parties shall abide by the following timetable
a. Moving Party (Diane Romerein et al.) Factum: July 8, 2026
b. Responding Party (Daniel Dworak et al.) Factum: July 15, 2026
c. Reply Factum, if any: July 22, 2026
f) Facta shall comply with the Rules and Practice Directions as regards length and other matters of form and content.
g) The question of costs is reserved to July 27, 2026.
h) If necessary, parties have leave to contact my assistant to schedule one 20 minute case conference at 9 am. Any briefs for a case conference shall be limited to 3 pages or less.
Justice Mathen
Date: June 8, 2026