CITATION: The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Atsan Hospitatlity Group Inc., 2026 ONSC 3570
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, Plaintiff
AND:
ATSAN HOSPITALITY GROUP INC.; SATHIYANATHAN THIRUNAVUKKARASU; VINOTHINI SHANMUGANATHAN, Defendants
BEFORE: Justice Papageorgiou
COUNSEL: Beverly Jusko, for the Plaintiff
HEARD: June 16, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1This matter has returned to court many times.
2The plaintiff has a judgment and is seeking to do an examination.
3The defendants have not attended.
4The plaintiff obtained orders that they attend.
5Then it sought a contempt order.
6The difficulty is that the plaintiff seeks orders for incarceration and has not complied strictly with either service requirements for the motion or in respect of the Orders that were made.
7In that regard, the motion record for contempt was not served personally as required by Rule 60.11 but rather was left with an adult member of the household. The plaintiff obtained no order permitting this.
8While the plaintiff says the defendants are evading service, it is not as if there were multiple attempts to serve personally. Rather, upon one failed attempt which could have been legitimately that the party was not home, they gave the motion record to an adult member. The fact that an adult member answered the door and took the package is inconsistent with service evasion. If they were evading service, one would think no one would answer the door.
9I raised an issue in particular as to how the defendants knew that the defendants resided at the Elliotglen address in question. The plaintiff then did investigations that showed that the defendant Sathiyananathan did not still reside at the address that they were serving him. They then did serve him at this new address, but again, they failed to serve him personally with the motion for contempt as required.
10There is also evidence about having emailed the defendants but again no evidence on how the plaintiff knows this is the email address for the parties. Again, the defendants appear to have split up as a couple as they reside separately and there is only one email address being used by the plaintiff. It makes no sense that they still share the same email address if they are no longer together.
11With respect to the Notices of Examination and the Orders requiring examination, Sathiyananathan was ultimately served with the orders requiring him to attend at his new residence in 2026 and he did not attend at the recent examination scheduled in 2026. This service was in accordance with the rules. Therefore, I am satisfied he knew about the Orders before the final examination scheduled, but again the motion record was not personally served as required.
12With respect to Vinothini, she was served properly with Associate Justice La Horey’s order of November 5, 2024 as it was served on her in accordance with Associate Justice La Horey’s order. However, when she did not attend and they brought a motion for contempt, I gave her one more chance to attend. Then, she was not properly served with the Order or Notice of Examination as these were simply left in a sealed envelope at her home after an unsuccessful attempt by the process server. This is not a recognized manner of service or alternate service in the rules. Again, while the argument is made that she is evading service, it is not as if multiple attempts were made or someone saw her in the house and she was not answering the door.
13As well, again, she was not personally served with the motion record for contempt.
14I am ordering one more time that the defendants must attend for examination in aid of execution.
15I am directing that the plaintiff gives Vinothini one more chance to attend and that she is served appropriately under the Rules either personally or via an alternate to personal service. The plaintiff knows where she lives, and it is unclear why they cannot effect proper service.
16Even though Sathiyananathan was properly served with the notices of examination and orders in 2026, I am also directing that Sathiyananthan be given one more chance to attend and that he is served properly with such notice of examination either personally or via an alternative to personal service. Again, they know where he lives, and it is unclear why they cannot serve him properly.
17Following this, I direct that the motion record for contempt be served personally as required under the Rules. Again, given that they know where these people live and given that they have writs of execution it is unclear why they cannot effect personal service.
18They shall also serve this endorsement and all other endorsements as part of this.
19It is very important that individuals are given the right notice before they are faced with a motion where the moving party seeks incarceration.
20Afterwards the plaintiff may seek a motion date from my assistant.
21As part of the new materials, I also direct that the plaintiff provide evidence as to who currently owns the Elliotglen property. The materials said that Sathiyananathan has owned it since 2021, but he does not live there, and I want confirmation that it is the case as well as confirmation, if it can be determined, as to when Sathiyananathan moved out of the Elliotglen property.
Papageorgiou J.
Date: June 17, 2026