CITATION: Prince v. Romita, 2026 ONSC 4792
COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-3202 (London)
DATE: 20260819
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
David Prince
Applicant
– and –
Anna Romita
Respondent
Shaneka Shaw Taylor and Peace Penzi, for the Applicant
Gurjiwan S. Brar, for the Respondent
HEARD: August 14, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
KALAJDZIC j.:
[1] In late November 2025, David Prince commenced an application under the Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4, for partition and sale of a duplex in St. Thomas, Ontario jointly owned with the respondent (the “St. Thomas property”). He also sought an order directing an accounting of expenses and corollary relief.
[2] On January 23, 2026, Nicholson J. granted the order of partition and sale. His Honour noted that, but for some minor details, the order was on consent.
[3] The St. Thomas property has now been sold and proceeds remain in trust. The parties largely agree on how the proceeds will be divided. The purpose of the one-hour hearing before me was to address the remaining accounting issues so that the proceeds can be distributed.
[4] In addition to the sale of the St. Thomas property, the notice of application also sought an order releasing the applicant from any liabilities related to an agreement of purchase and sale entered into by the parties for a pre-construction condominium in Mississauga (the “condominium”). In the alternative, the applicant requested enforcement of the terms of a Mutual Release reached between the parties in relation to the condominium.
[5] The applicant sought to obtain judgment in relation to the condominium at the same one-hour hearing. No factums were filed and the evidence was contested. It was not realistic to expect that the hearing could be held on a regular motions day.
[6] For the reasons that follow, I order that $122,382.17 be distributed to the applicant from the proceeds of sale held in trust by Monarch Law LLP. While the respondent is notionally entitled to the remaining $6,789.06, this amount shall continue to be held in trust pending confirmation that the applicant has not already paid his share of the carrying costs for September 2025 to January 2026, and the parties’ submissions as to costs.
[7] I am unable to grant the relief claimed in respect of the condominium on the record before me. I am exercising my discretion to order a trial of an issue in respect of the Mutual Release signed by the parties.
Background
[8] The facts leading to the application are described in Nicholson J.’s endorsement and shall not be repeated here.
[9] Two features of the arrangement bear repeating, because they matter to the accounting below. First, the parties carried on their joint venture through a corporation, which holds no assets and which both parties agree should now be dissolved. Second, the St. Thomas property is a duplex: the respondent occupied one of the two units, while the other was rented to a tenant.
[10] Following the issuance of Nicholson J.’s order, the St. Thomas property was listed for sale and sold. Both parties cooperated with the process. There is undisputed evidence that through the respondent’s efforts, the parties saved $6,610 in real estate commissions. In her affidavit sworn August 9, 2026, the respondent also describes other efforts to facilitate the closing of the transaction, including arranging for the replacement of the hot water tank and acting as liaison between the purchaser and the existing tenant. I record these contributions because the respondent relies on them, and I will take them into account when I come to fix the costs of the application.
[11] The net proceeds from the sale of the St. Thomas property were $132,171.23. The respondent has already consented to $3,000 being released from her share in satisfaction of the costs order made against her by Nicholson J.
Issues
[12] The following issues arise on the application:
a. How should the proceeds of sale of the St. Thomas property be distributed?
b. Is the applicant entitled to an order that he be removed from the agreement of purchase and sale (“APS”) for the condominium?
a. Division of Proceeds of Sale
[13] An accounting is necessary to determine how the proceeds of sale currently being held in trust, $129,171.23, should be distributed.
[14] The parties agree that the applicant is entitled to $120,000, representing the return of his down payment. The applicant seeks all of the remaining $9,171.23 on the basis that the respondent owes $12,000 in costs of the application on a partial indemnity basis, and an additional $791 in accounting fees.
[15] I address the proposed accounting fees first. The respondent has filed the corporation’s annual returns and income tax returns. Notices of assessment dated August 7, 2026 confirm that the corporation owes no taxes. The respondent has also prepared articles of dissolution in the Ontario Business Registry, which will expire on November 4, 2026 if not completed by that date. As soon as the applicant provides his authorization for the dissolution of the corporation, the work of unwinding the corporation is complete.
[16] I agree with the respondent, therefore, that further accounting fees are unnecessary. There is no need to hire an accountant to unwind the parties’ corporation. The applicant’s claim for $791 from the respondent is denied.
[17] With respect to the $12,000 in costs claimed by the applicant, I am unable to fix the amount of costs for at least two reasons. First, the applicant did not file a Bill of Costs. I do not have any information about the costs incurred since Nicholson J. made his order on January 23, 2026 and ordered costs of the application to that date. Second, Mr. Brar indicated that offers to settle had been exchanged prior to the hearing, and will be relevant to the apportionment of costs.
[18] As a result, the applicant’s claim for costs shall be addressed at the conclusion of the application.
[19] The respondent also claims the applicant’s share of maintenance expenses dating back to October 2023, and carrying costs between September 2025 and January 2026, inclusive. According to the respondent’s calculations, the applicant owes $3,245.06 for maintenance costs and $1,509.20 for carrying costs.
[20] The respondent attached receipts, invoices and copies of email correspondence with the applicant that confirm most of the expenses claimed are appropriately shared by the parties as owners of the St. Thomas property. I do not allow the following expenses on the basis that they were incurred by the respondent in her role as tenant, not landlord:
Leaf garbage bags
$50.21
Ice and snow salt
37.27
Lawn mower
259.89
Total disallowed
$347.37
[21] Thus, I find that the applicant owes the respondent $2,897.69 ($3,245.06 less $347.37) for maintenance costs related to the St. Thomas property.
[22] Ms. Taylor does not dispute that the applicant is required to contribute 50% of carrying costs, made up of home insurance and property taxes. However, she has no information about whether five months of contributions are owing. Counsel were content to agree to an order that the applicant pay $1,509.20 to the respondent, subject to confirmation that the applicant has not already paid his share of those costs.
[23] Thus, the proceeds of sale shall be divided as follows:
To Applicant
To Respondent
Proceeds of sale (net of $3,000 costs award already released to applicant)
$129,171.23
Return of down payment to applicant
$120,000.00
Reimbursement of maintenance costs to respondent
$2,897.69
Reimbursement of carrying costs to respondent
1,509.20
Remaining balance of $4,764.34 shared equally
2,382.17
2,382.17
Total
$122,382.17
$6,789.06
[24] The applicant is entitled to $122,382.17, and the respondent to $6,789.06. The applicant is entitled to immediate payment of the amount owing to him. The respondent’s share is subject to confirmation that the applicant has not already paid his share of the carrying costs for the period September 2025 to January 2026, and to the potential costs award.
b. Is the applicant entitled to an order removing him from the APS?
[25] I cannot grant an order that the applicant’s name be removed from the APS for the condominium. Counsel provided me with no authority that I have that jurisdiction. The vendor has not been given notice of this proceeding and has contractual rights against both the applicant and the respondent.
[26] In the alternative, the applicant seeks an order requiring the respondent to take all reasonable steps necessary to secure his removal from the APS, and to assume responsibility for the financial consequences of amending the APS.
[27] The applicant requests this relief on the basis of a Mutual Release signed by the parties on August 29, 2025. The parties had agreed to unwind their business venture. The applicant no longer wished to have any financial exposure regarding the condominium. Under the Mutual Release, the respondent was to pay $20,000 to the applicant ($5,455 less than his contribution to the deposit for the condominium) for his interest, and to indemnify him from all actions related to the condominium.
[28] In her affidavit sworn November 8, 2025, the respondent alleges that she signed the Mutual Release under duress, and that the lawyer who drafted the agreement was in a conflict of interest when she gave advice to the respondent.
[29] In his reply affidavit sworn January 15, 2026, the applicant denies the conflict but admits that his lawyer practised at the same three-person law firm as the lawyer who advised the respondent. On its face, this admission raises at least the appearance of a conflict.
[30] The applicant also denies that he pressured the respondent to sign the Mutual Release. The respondent, in an apparent waiver of solicitor-client privilege, states that the lawyer told her she had no choice but to agree to the terms, even though the terms required secondary financing that the first lender would not agree to.
[31] It is not self-evident why the respondent “had no choice” but to sign the agreement. From the vendor’s perspective, the APS is enforceable as much against the applicant as the respondent. The parties paid a deposit of $93,957 on the condominium, of which the respondent contributed $68,502 and the applicant $25,455. If the Mutual Release is enforceable, she will bear all of the financial consequences of a failure to complete the purchase, including the loss of the applicant’s deposit.
[32] Cross-examinations were not conducted on the competing affidavits. I have no way of determining whether the respondent’s claims of a conflict of interest and duress have any validity.
[33] I acknowledge that the costs of further litigation may be disproportionate to the amounts at issue. The applicant is prepared to accept $14,000 for his interest in the condominium. Whether the vendor will agree to a further amendment to the APS is unknown. The parties have not yet attempted to approach the vendor jointly to seek the amendment.
[34] If the parties cannot come to a practical solution to the issue, then they will have to return with further evidence and submissions on the issues of duress and conflict of interest.
[35] An application may be converted into an action when the court cannot make a proper determination of the issues on the application record, such as where issues of credibility are involved: Przysuski v. City Optical Holdings Inc., 2013 ONSC 5709, at paras. 7-8. That is the case here. Pursuant to my authority under r. 38.10(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, I am directing a trial of an issue, namely, the enforceability of the Mutual Release. I will remain seized of this matter.
Disposition and Next Steps
[36] The court orders that $122,382.17 be paid immediately to the applicant from the proceeds of sale held in trust by Monarch Law LLP.
[37] The remaining proceeds, $6,789.06, shall continue to be held in trust pending further order of the court.
[38] For clarity, the distribution set out above gives effect to the following findings: the applicant’s claim for $791 in accounting fees is dismissed; $347.37 of the respondent’s claimed maintenance expenses is disallowed; the applicant owes the respondent $2,897.69 for maintenance costs and $1,509.20 for carrying costs, the latter subject to confirmation that he has not already paid his share; and the costs of the application are reserved.
[39] The applicant claims $12,000 in costs, an amount that exceeds the $6,789.06 now held in trust. The holdback therefore does not secure that claim, and nothing in this endorsement should be taken as limiting or capping the costs that may ultimately be awarded.
[40] There shall be a trial of the issue of the enforceability of the Mutual Release. This proceeding shall be treated as an action in respect of the issue to be tried. The application is adjourned to a one-day trial, to be scheduled by the trial coordinator.
[41] Given the amounts at issue, it is incumbent on the parties to proceed in as cost-efficient a manner as possible. They shall use best efforts to draft a trial schedule. The agreed upon terms may then form directions for the trial of the issue pursuant to r. 38.10(3). If the parties need further directions regarding next steps or a timetable, I may be spoken to.
[42] Should the parties resolve the issues related to the condominium and only need to make submissions regarding costs, they shall advise me through the trial coordinator, so that I may set deadlines for the exchange of written submissions.
Jasminka Kalajdzic
Justice
Released: August 19, 2026
CITATION: Prince v. Romita, 2026 ONSC 4792
COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-3202 (London)
DATE: 20260819
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
David Prince
Applicant
– and –
Anna Romita
Respondent
endorsement
Kalajdzic J.
Released: August 19, 2026