SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE:
POBOJEWSKI, PETER, Applicant
AND:
POONIA, SHARANJIT SINGH SINGH, RAJVINDER POONIA, GURCHARAN SINGH POONIA, DARSHAN KAUR TEJAY, RAMANDEEP SINGH, AVTAR, Respondents
BEFORE:
Justice L.B. Stewart
COUNSEL:
ROTH, NEAL H., for the Applicant No one appeared for the Respondents
HEARD:
July 10, 2026
SHORT MOTION ENDORSEMENT
- Motion, by applicant, to set aside tenancy agreement, an order for possession and an order giving leave to issue a writ of possession.
Previous Adjournment
- This motion was previously adjourned on the request of the respondent. The motion was adjourned to today, peremptory on the respondents. The adjournment was granted on terms, including:
a. The respondent owners shall pay $6,162 to the applicant, monthly, starting April 29, 2026;
b. The respondent owners shall deliver the tenancy agreement for the current occupants and proof of payment of property taxes.
c. The respondent owners shall pay $1200 plus HST in costs within 30 days.
The respondents did not respond to this application.
- Despite proper service and the adjournment of 10.5 weeks, none of the respondents filed any materials for the motion, nor did they appear on the motion day (July 10, 2026).
The respondent owners are in breach of the adjournment terms.
The respondent owners have not made any monthly payments to the applicant, in breach of the adjournment terms.
The respondent owners have not paid the costs, in breach of the adjournment terms.
The respondent owners have not paid the property taxes, but the applicant advises that the taxes are up to date because they have been paid by another mortgagee.
The respondents have not produced the tenancy agreement, in breach of the adjournment terms.
Background Facts
The applicant provided a mortgage to the Sharanjit Poonia, Rajvinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh Poonia, and Darshan Kaur Poonia, for the property known municipally as 13894 Innis Lake Road, Caledon, Ontario, L7C 2Y6. Sharanjit Poonia, Rajinder Singh, Gurcharan Singh Poonia, and Darshan Kaur Poonia are respondents in this application and shall be referred to as the “respondent owners”.
The mortgage was registered on November 12, 2021, and was for the sum of $522,500. The parties agreed to standard charge terms.
The mortgage was to mature on November 10, 2022, but was renewals extended that maturity date to June 10, 2025.
In June 2025 and over the ensuing months, the applicant was told that the home was in the process of being sold and/or renovations were being done to permit the sale. The applicant agreed to extend the mortgage to November 30, 2025, to permit the sale to conclude.
The sale did not conclude. On December 10, 2025, the real estate solicitor for the respondent owners said he was no longer retained. The respondent owners stopped communicating with the applicant. The respondent owners did not answer the applicant’s emails or text messages. The mortgage has been in default since then, at the latest.
Starting on December 17, 2025, the applicant made significant efforts to determine who was occupying the property, which is a ten-acre lot with a four-bedroom single family home.
The applicant has been blocked at every turn in his efforts to identify the occupants and determine if there is a tenancy agreement. There was a family (two adults and three children) residing at the home, paying the respondent owners $3500 per month. They refused to provide their names. However, the vehicle parked in the driveway were registered to the respondents Ramandeep Tejay and Avtar Singh, who shall be referred to as the respondent occupants.
The respondent owners have not provided any evidence of a tenancy agreement. The respondent occupants have not provided any evidence of a tenancy agreement.
All of the respondents have been served with demands for information but did not respond.
In a parallel civil action (CV-25-00007063), the applicant obtained judgment against the respondent owners on February 11, 2026, for $583,671.78n plus interest from February 9, 2026. The respondent owners have not made any payment on this judgment.
All of the respondents, including the occupants, are aware of this judgment, which was served upon them. The respondent owners took no steps to set aside the default judgment.
The mortgage provides that entering into any tenancy agreement prior to repayment is an event of default.
The respondent occupants refused to tell a representative of the applicant any information, stating that “Poonia” said not to tell you anything.
Law and Analysis
The applicant seeks an order setting aside any tenancy agreement, possession of the property and leave to issue a writ of possession.
The applicant is unable to enforce the judgment for possession given that occupants are present on the property. The applicant has no access to the property.
The Mortgages Act protects legitimate tenants when the mortgagor defaulted under the mortgage. It does not provide mortgagors and tenants who work in concert to deprive the mortgagee of remedies.
Section 50 of the Mortgages Act requires a mortgagor and/or tenant to provide documents and information regarding the tenancy. There is no evidence of an actual lease agreement. One respondent occupant said they were paying the owners $3500 per month, but there is no evidence of this.
In this case, the court is satisfied that all the respondents, the owners and the occupants, were given ample opportunity over the last six months to provide information regarding the tenancy. Given this ample time and the fact that the respondent owners breached the adjournment order (which was a last opportunity to provide the tenancy agreement), the court is satisfied that the respondents need not be provided with further opportunities to comply with section 50 of the Mortgages Act.
Section 52 of the Mortgages Act provide that a court may vary or set aside a tenancy agreement (or any sections of an agreement) which was entered into in contemplation of or after default under the mortgage with the object of discouraging mortgagee possession or adversely affecting the value of the mortgagee’s interest.
On an application under section 52, the court must consider the interests o the mortgagee and the tenant. The interests of the mortgagor are excluded: section 52(2), Mortgages Act.
There is a three-part test to set aside a tenancy agreement:
a. There must e a tenancy agreement entered into by the mortgagor;
b. The tenancy agreement must be entered into in contemplation of or after the default; and
c. The tenancy agreement must have the object of either discouraging the mortgagee from taking possession or adversely affecting the value of the mortgagee’s interest in the property1.
In this case, there is no requirement to consider the section 52 test because there has been no tenancy agreement produced to the court. If there is no tenancy agreement, then there is no legal protection for the occupants. They are not tenants. The applicant is entitled to possession.
In the alternative, if there was a tenancy agreement, the court would find that the section 52 test was met on the strength of the following facts:
a. The current occupants did not enter the property until after the mortgage came due at the end of 2025.
b. The owners failed to complete the sale which was the basis to obtain the mortgage extension from the applicant.
c. The respondent owners have refused to communicate with the applicant since December 10, 2025.
d. The respondent occupants refused to provide the applicant with any information on the instructions of “Poonia” (two respondent owners have the surname Poonia).
e. The occupant monthly payment ($3500) is only 56.8% of the monthly mortgage payment.
f. The respondent owners have not made any payments since the default.
The court can therefore find that the tenancy was entered into in contemplation of, or after the default and that the tenancy had the purpose of discouraging mortgagee possession or adversely affecting the value of the mortgagee’s interest in the property.
In other cases, where a tenancy agreement was set aside, the tenants were given a certain amount of time to vacate the premises. For instance, in the case of Home Trust, cited above, the court found that the tenants had no knowledge of the situation and were therefore given several months to vacate.
The court cannot make a similar finding about the respondent occupants in this case. The respondent occupants were given ample notice and elected not to respond to this proceeding. They could have provided evidence to this court regarding the circumstances.
The respondents have been on formal notice of this proceeding since early March. The court therefore finds that the respondent occupants shall vacate the premises by July 31, 2026, at noon.
Costs
The applicant seeks costs on a full indemnity scale, in the amount of $16,061.50.
The applicant observes that the mortgage terms provide for costs on a solicitor-client scale.
The applicant argues that the behaviour of the respondents merits elevated costs.
Finally, the applicant asks that all the respondents be jointly and severally responsible for the costs.
Although this application is not a mortgage enforcement action (the applicant has already obtained a judgment in a separate action), this application was relief arising from the mortgage. Therefore, it is appropriate to order costs on a solicitor client basis, which is what the respondent owners agreed to in the mortgage.
A failure to respond to a proceeding does not, in and of itself, give rise to elevated costs. However, I find that elevated costs are appropriate against the respondent owners because they breached the terms of the adjournment order, which is an order that they sought.
The court does not find that the costs order should apply to the respondent occupants. Although they failed to provide direct evidence, the available evidence seems to indicate they were acting on the instructions of one of the respondent owners.
The applicant’s bill of costs calculates substantial indemnity costs at $14,526.40, inclusive of all fees, HST and disbursements.
Counsel’s hourly rate is within market rates seen by this court and counsel is very senior. The hours are reasonable. The disbursements are reasonable and supported.
The court awards costs to the applicant in the amount of $14,527. The court further orders that the four respondent owners are jointly and severally liable for the costs award.
Judgment
The applicant is entitled to a judgment setting aside any tenancy agreement, possession and an order for leave to issue a writ of possession. As noted above, the respondent occupants are required to vacate the house my July 31, 2026, by noon.
The judgment shall include costs in accordance with the terms above.
I have signed the draft judgment.
The applicant shall serve this endorsement upon the respondents.
L.B. Stewart
Released: July 20, 2026
CITATION: Pobojewski v. Poonia et al, 2026 ONSC 4200
COURT FILE NO.: CV-26-00001404-0000
DATE: 2026 07 20
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
POBOJEWSKI, PETER
Applicant
– and –
POONIA, SHARANJIT SINGH
SINGH, RAJVINDER
POONIA, GURCHARAN SINGH
POONIA, DARSHAN KAUR
TEJAY, RAMANDEEP
SINGH, AVTAR
Respondents
SHORT MOTION ENDORSEMENT
Stewart J.
Released: July 20, 2026
Footnotes
- Home Trust Company v. Mahmood, 2024 ONSC 4276.