CITATION: Bowen v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2026 ONSC 4825
COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-00737520
MOTION HEARD: 20260423
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Caroline Bowen, Applicant
AND:
Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Respondent
BEFORE: Associate Justice B. McAfee
COUNSEL: K. Douglas, Counsel, for the Moving Party, the Respondent, Toronto Community Housing Corporation
H. Sarros, Counsel, for the Responding Party, the Applicant, Caroline Bowen
HEARD: April 23, 2026
endorsement
[1] This is a motion brought by the respondent Toronto Community House Corporation (“TCHC”) for an order striking out and/or dismissing the application of the applicant Caroline Bowen (“Ms. Bowen”) in its entirety without leave to amend or refile and alternative relief. Ms. Bowen opposes the motion.
[2] TCHC originally brought this motion relying on Rule 21.01. TCHC no longer relies on Rule 21.01 and is now relying on Rule 25.11 (see amended notice of motion dated July 24, 2025, notice of motion dated August 14, 2025, and amended amended notice of motion dated February 2, 2026).
[3] On February 21, 2025, Ms. Bowen commenced the within application seeking an order requiring TCHC to execute a full and final release in her favour absolving her of rent arrears or to deem a release of such nature to be executed. Ms. Bowen also seeks an order requiring that certain parts of the release in favour of TCHC to be amended or deleted. Ms. Bowen also seeks punitive damages and further or in the alternative that a trial be directed over the issue, and costs.
[4] As set out in the grounds for the application, Ms. Bowen is a tenant at a property where TCHC is the landlord. On January 10, 2018, Ms. Bowen commenced an action against TCHC in the Superior Court of Justice bearing court file no. CV-18-00589780-0000 alleging negligence for injuries and damages associated with mould growth in Ms. Bowen’s apartment (“the Action”).
[5] As set out in the grounds for the application, on September 26, 2024, TCHC offered to settle the Action in an all-inclusive amount. Among other things TCHC stated that the settlement “factors in the rental arrears which we understand Ms. Bowen owes to TCHC on account of unpaid rent.” The settlement contemplated a full and final release and a consent to a dismissal order.
[6] As set out in the grounds for the application, on September 26, 2024, Ms. Bowen, through her counsel, accepted TCHC’s offer to settle.
[7] As set out in the grounds for the application, on October 2, 2024, TCHC provided a draft consent to a dismissal order and a draft full and final release for execution. Ms. Bowen took issue with part of the draft full and final release that she submits is too far reaching. TCHC has refused to remove part of the release that Ms. Bowen takes issue with. TCHC has also failed to provide a full and final release in favour of Ms. Bowen regarding the rent arrears.
[8] As set out in the grounds for the application, on October 1, 2024, after settlement was reached and unbeknownst to Ms. Bowen, TCHC attended before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) without notice and obtained an order evicting Ms. Bowen from the apartment for alleged rent arrears.
[9] Ms. Bowen alleges that the conduct of TCHC was high-handed and contrary to the settlement. Ms. Bowen alleges that TCHC breached an implied duty to contract in good faith by agreeing to release her of rent arrears while at the same time using the allegation of rent arrears as a basis to obtain an eviction order at the LTB without notice and that such conduct should attract punitive damages.
[10] Ms. Bowen alleges shock and distress and states that she will suffer additional losses and expenses associated with setting aside of the eviction order.
[11] On this motion, TCHC argues that the application is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process and is bound to fail. TCHC argues that there is no merit to Ms. Bowen’s application.
[12] Ms. Bowen argues that the motion is an attempt by TCHC to litigate the merits of Ms. Bowen’s claims at the pleadings stage which is not a proper use of Rule 25.11.
[13] Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states:
25.11 The court may strike out or expunge all or part of a pleading or other document, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that the pleading or other document,
(a) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action;
(b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) is an abuse of the process of the court.
[14] In Brunn v. Halton Children’s Aid Society, 2016 ONSC 6195 (Ont. S.C.J.), Master Pope reviewed the applicable principles on a motion pursuant to Rule 25.11 at para. 29. At paragraph 29(c) Master Pope states that motions under rule 25.11 should only be granted in the “clearest of cases” citing Wernikowski v. Kirkland Murphy & Ain (1999), 1999 CanLII 3822 (ON CA), 181 D.L.R. (4th) 625 (Ont. C.A.). At paragraph 29(b), Master Pope states that the pleading must be read with a generous eye and should only be struck if it is plain and obvious that it must fail at trial.
[15] I am not satisfied that this is the clearest of cases, nor am I satisfied that it is plain and obvious that the application will fail.
[16] TCHC argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims made under Rule 14.
[17] TCHC relies in part on Przysuski v. City Optical Holdings Inc., 2013 ONSC 5709 (Ont. S.C.J.). Przysuski is not a motion before an Associate Judge to strike under Rule 25.11. Przysuski is a motion to a Judge to convert an application into an action pursuant to Rule 14 and Rule 38.10.
[18] Ms. Bowen relies on Rule 14.05(3)(d) and (h). Ms. Bowen is seeking a determination of rights that depend on the interpretation of a contract being the settlement agreement. If certain relief sought would be more appropriately dealt with in whole or part by way of action, Rule 38.10 would be applicable. The notice of application contemplates a possible trial of an issue with respect to the claim for punitive damages. I am not satisfied that this is a basis to strike or dismiss all or part of the application pursuant to Rule 25.11.
[19] TCHC also argues that the Superior Court of Justice lacks the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought because the forgiveness of rental arrears is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LTB.
[20] The notice of application does not seek to set aside, vary or appeal the LTB’s order. The notice of application concerns the settlement agreement and releases in a Superior Court of Justice Action and whether the arrears were, according to the notice of application, “factored in” when the Action was settled.
[21] TCHC argues that there are no facts pleaded that call into question the interpretation of the contract being the release.
[22] At subparagraph 2(e) of the notice of application, reference is made to the assertion that the TCHC’s offer to settle indicated that the settlement “factors in the rental arrears which we understand Ms. Bowen owes to TCHC on account of unpaid rent”. The grounds relating to the issue of the releases are set out at subparagraphs 2(g) – (k). Reading the notice of application generously, grounds are alleged relating to the determination of rights that depend on an interpretation of the contract, being the settlement agreement. The interpretation of the settlement agreement is directly related to the issue of the releases.
[23] The moving party has a heavy burden on a motion to strike (Brunn at subparagraph 29(b)). Having regard to all the circumstances before me TCHC has not satisfied their heavy burden to demonstrate that all or part of the application ought to be struck or dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.11.
[24] For these reasons, TCHC’s motion pursuant to Rule 25.11 is dismissed.
[25] If any party seeks costs, the parties shall make best efforts to resolve the issue of costs. If after making best efforts the parties are unable to resolve the issue costs, any party seeking costs shall serve and submit to me brief written submissions on costs of three pages or less in length, together with any offer(s) to settle relied upon, on or before September 25, 2026. Any responding submissions shall be three pages or less in length and served and submitted to me on or before October 9, 2026. Reply submissions, if any, shall be no more than one page in length and served and submitted to me on or before October 16, 2026. The costs submissions shall be submitted to me by email to Assistant Trial Coordinator Teanna.Charlebois@ontario.ca and shall be accompanied with an affidavit of service. Costs outlines have been uploaded to Case Center.
Associate Justice B. McAfee
Date: August 21, 2026