Kolic v. Jarnevic et al., 2026 ONSC 962

CITATION: Kolic v. Jarnevic et al., 2026 ONSC 962

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-61884

DATE: 2026-02-17

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Sylvestra Kolic, a.k.a. Sylvia Kolic, personally and as co-executor/co-estate trustee of the Estate of Ivanka Covaceuszach, Applicant

AND:

Ivanka Jozica Jarnevic, a.k.a. Josie Jarnevic, personally and as co-executor/co-estate trustee of the Estate of Ivanka Covaceuszach and Robert Jarnevic, William Joseph Grilj and Elio Danilo Covaceuszach, Respondents

BEFORE: Bordin J.

COUNSEL: P. Neufeld and A. Persofsky for the Applicant M. Mulholland and T. Thirukkumar for the respondent, Josie Jarnevic Robert Jarnevic for himself Danilo Covaceuszach for himself

HEARD: February 13, 2026

ENDORSEMENT

Overview

1The deceased, Ivanka Covaceuszach, died on November 20, 2021. Pursuant to her will dated August 26, 2008 (the “Will”), Sylvia Kolic (“Sylvia”) and Josie Jarnevic (“Josie”) were named as co-estate trustees. They received a certificate of appointment on July 6, 2023. No one disputes the validity of the Will or that it set out the deceased’s testamentary intention.

2Elio Danilo Covaceuszach (“Danilo”) and William Joseph Grilj (“Joe”), also children of the deceased, are beneficiaries under the Will. The estate was to be divided equally among Danilo, Sylvia, and Josie, except that Danilo’s share was to be reduced by $150,000, which represents the repayment of money loaned to him by the deceased. Joe was entitled only to a fixed $50,000 bequest under the Will, which he has already received.

3The primary remaining estate assets include two abutting properties in Grimsby, Ontario, which remain unsold: 378 Main Street West (“Main Street”) and 11 Casablanca Boulevard (“Casablanca”).

Materials filed

4There several thousands of pages of materials filed on this application. Sylvia has filed and relies on eight affidavits, two of which are from experts. Josie has filed four affidavits.

5Each party has filed two factums.

6Robert has filed a notice of appearance and appeared at the hearing without counsel. He confirmed he has been a party since the application was started. He has not filed any materials.

7Danilo also filed a notice of appearance and appeared at the hearing without counsel. He has not filed any materials.

Procedural History

8There were several appearances in court in 2024. In August 2024, Sylvia was granted leave to add Danilo and Joe to the application. On November 14, 2024, the applicant’s motion to amend the application was adjourned to the week of December 14, 2024. On December 23, 2024, on the agreement of the parties, a judicial mediation was scheduled for February 7, 2025.

9On January 16, 2025, Standryk J. allowed the applicant to amend the application.

10No resolution was reached at the judicial mediation on February 7, 2025. A further mediation was scheduled and held on March 11, 2025, but was not successful at resolving the issues. The application and motion were scheduled for the week of May 12, 2025. It was not called that week and was adjourned to the week of June 23, 2025, adjourned again to the week of October 6, 2025, and finally was scheduled for a fixed hearing today.

Background

11Around 2015, the deceased permitted Josie’s son Robert Jarnevic (“Robert”) to stay with her at Main Street. Except for a short period around 2018, Robert has lived at Main Street ever since. Josie moved into Main Street in the spring of 2021. Josie says it was to take care of the deceased together with Robert. It is not clear whether she continues to live there.

12Robert and Josie have never paid rent to the estate. Sylvia led expert evidence that the market rent for Main Street is between $3,300 and $3,400 plus utilities. Josie disputes this amount.

13Josie rented Main Street to Mr. Lukando and Ms. Nziwa for $2,800 per month as of August 1, 2024. Syliva says Josie has not accounted for the rental proceeds. Josie says that all the money is in an estate bank account.

14There is also a Fruit Stand business on Main Street which had been operated by an independent vendor who paid rent. Josie collected this rent until about June 2023, then Sylvia took over. Josie says she used the money for the maintenance of Main Street.

15Sylvia says Robert has taken over the fruit stand and Robert has not paid rent. Josie has not responded to this allegation.

16On or about March 11, 2024, Josie rented Casablanca to a Ms. Kucybala. Ms. Kucybala pays Josie $2,000 per month in cash. Josie deposits the money into her account but says she is agreeable to transfer it to the estate.

17Sylvia asserts that Robert is also operating or permitting the operation of a woodcutting and firewood business on Casablanca without paying rent. The property is not insured for such a business. Josie says there is no woodcutting business. The wood is used to heat the house. Her evidence differs on which house.

18Josie asserts she maintained the properties since the 1970s and after the deceased died. She says Robert helped her with this and that this has increased the value of the properties. Josie says she has paid taxes and utilities for the properties and other expenses after the deceased died. She says Robert renovated the bathroom at Main Street and the deceased said he should be reimbursed from the Estate. This is not provided for in the Will.

19Josie says she provided care to the deceased until her death. She acknowledges that Sylvia provided some care but says she provided most of the care. Josie says Robert helped too.

20Josie says that she and Robert have never been paid for their work on the properties or for caring for the deceased. In her December 4, 2024, and June 20, 2025, affidavits Josie sets out the basis for her claims for compensation for care of the deceased and contributions to the properties. Although provided with an opportunity to do so, Josie and Robert have not advanced a formal claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit.

21Sylvia asserts that Robert has cluttered up Casablanca with his belongings. Josie asserts some of the belongings were the deceased’s.

22There is no expert evidence as to the value of the properties at any time since the deceased died and whether they are worth more individually, or as a package, or whether they will sell for more if they are vacant or occupied. There is no cogent evidence of any efforts by Sylvia to sell the properties after late 2022 early 2023. There is no evidence of any effort by Josie to sell the properties. There is no evidence of any effort by either trustee to obtain appraisals or suggested listing prices or a marketing plan for the properties.

23Josie does not oppose the sale of the properties. In her factum she proposes that an order could be granted that the properties be sold on the open market to an independent party or to her. She also acknowledges in her factum that the principal remaining step in the administration of the estate is the sale of the properties, and that the sale is essential to enable the distribution of the estate.

24Sylvia is not opposed to the sale of the properties but has not sought this relief in her application or on this motion.

Relief sought by the applicant

25The applicant commenced this hearing to seek the following relief:

a. The removal of Josie as co-estate trustee;

b. Vesting title to Main Street and Casablanca in Sylvia as sole trustee;

c. The return of any estate assets in Josie’s possession to Sylvia;

d. Requiring Robert and Josie to remove their possessions from and to vacate Main Street and Casablanca;

e. A writ of possession for Main Street and Casablanca;

f. A determination of the amount of occupation rent owed by Josie and Robert for Main Street and that it be paid to Sylvia on behalf of the Estate;

g. A determination of the amount of occupation rent owed by Robert for his woodcutting and fruit stand business and occupation of Casablanca and requiring that it be paid it to Sylvia on behalf of the Estate;

h. Requiring Sylvia to provide an accounting for rent received for Main Street and Casablanca from January 1, 2024, to the date of judgment;

i. Production of the lease agreement for Main Street;

j. Assignment of the lease for Main Street to Sylvia as landlord;

k. Assignment of the lease between Josie and Ms. Kucybala for Casablanca to Sylvia as landlord;

l. Converting the balance of the application into an action to determine the issue of damages.

26Josie also makes allegations in her affidavits that Sylvia has allegedly taken estate funds or has not accounted for estate funds. Josie has had an opportunity to seek an accounting from Sylvia but has never formally done so.

The request for an adjournment

27At the outset of the hearing, Josie sought an adjournment. After hearing submissions, I advised the parties that the request for an adjournment was denied with written reasons to follow. This portion of my endorsement sets out those reasons.

28The factors to be considered in determining whether to grant an adjournment include a) the evidence and strength of the evidence of the reason for the adjournment request; b) the history of the matter; c) the prejudice to the party resisting the adjournment; and d) the consequences to the requesting party: MacBeth Estate v. MacBeth, 2025 ONCA 360, at para. 8.

29Josie’s evidence in support of her request for an adjournment is weak. She states in her affidavit that her previous counsel notified her on October 29, 2025, of a breakdown in their relationship and recommended that she obtain new counsel. She goes on to say that that although her lawyer was only removed from the record on January 22, 2026, she has been searching for a lawyer since around October 29, 2025, and that she has had difficulty finding a lawyer willing to take on her file. She reiterates that she has been actively seeking counsel for several months prior to the date of this motion. However, Josie provides no details or other evidence of the efforts made to retain counsel, who she contacted, or when.

30As set out above, this matter has a long history. The parties have been waiting to have this matter called since May 2025. With the RSJ’s permission, a hearing was fixed for today’s date. Josie says she only wants a short adjournment. However, there is no guarantee that the adjournment will be short. This region is currently short approximately 10 per cent of its complement of full time judges. Adjourning the matter could result in it not being heard for many months.

31Josie submits this is a complex matter, with voluminous materials. She says she always intended to have counsel. She says an adjournment will prejudice her right to a fair hearing.

32Because she retained Mr. Mulholland on February 11, 2026, Josie says that she has not had time to prepare for the hearing with her lawyer and that Mr. Mulholland requires further time to prepare for the hearing. Josie’s counsel agreed they accepted the retainer knowing the hearing was scheduled for today. Josie appeared with two lawyers at today’s hearing.

33My assessment of the evidence and materials is that although substantial, it was not impossible to adequately prepare for this hearing in two days.

34Josie asserts that her counsel has told her there “may” be information missing from the record. She provides no indication of what might be missing in her affidavit. In submissions, counsel gave some examples of things that are missing. For example, pronouns in the factum are wrong and the transcript of Sylvia’s cross-examination was not filed. None of these are insurmountable issues or issues that would require an adjournment.

35Josie submits that a short adjournment will not prejudice Sylvia. If there is prejudice, it is to the Estate and its beneficiaries. Danilo opposed the adjournment. Robert, who is not a beneficiary, was in favour of the adjournment. The trustees have a duty to administer the estate. There are outstanding estate issues which must be dealt with.

36For these reasons, the adjournment request was denied.

Robert must leave the properties

37After hearing most of the submissions from the applicant, I raised issues regarding the relief sought. Court recessed for lunch and counsel and the parties used the time to speak to each other.

38After lunch, the parties, including Danilo, advised the court that they had reached an agreement on all issues except whether Robert must leave Main Street and remove his belongings from the properties. They want this issue determined by the court.

39Sylvia’s position is that Robert should be required to leave the property as he has no legal right to be there, he is not a beneficiary of the estate, he does not pay occupation rent and will not have paid any rent for living at Main Street and using Casablanca since 2015. Occupation rent is one of the issues that has been resolved by way of a payment by Josie to the estate. Sylvia does not seek occupation rent but says that Robert must leave and remove his belongings.

40Sylvia also submits that allowing Robert to stay:

a. could have a negative impact on the ability to sell the properties;

b. could have a negative impact on the value of the properties;

c. that Robert has cluttered the properties with his belongings and that he could make this situation worse;

d. could make it more difficult to appraise, list, repair and sell the properties;

41Sylvia submits that there is evidence that Robert impeded realtor access to the properties in the past and that there is minimal prejudice to Robert.

42Josie, a trustee with a fiduciary duty to the estate, supports Robert staying at the property. She submits that having someone at the property could be better than leaving it vacant, that Robert could pay rent, that there is no indication he will not leave when the time comes, and that there is no evidence that his belongings have diminished the value of the properties.

43Robert simply asks to be allowed to stay. He says that not all the belongings on the properties are his – many of the items are Josie’s. He says some of the things belonged to the deceased and are items needed to operate a farm. Josie acknowledges that some items are hers and she would abide by any order requiring their removal. Robert says he would willingly leave the property when a sale closes. He did not offer to pay any rent.

44In November 2022, Robert was asked to vacate the property by February 1, 2023. He did not do so. There is no legal basis advanced by Robert entitling him to stay on the properties. The deceased did not provide for this in the Will. There is nothing in writing from the deceased stating that Robert can remain on the properties indefinitely and rent free. The parties have now agreed that the properties are to be sold. They have put a plan in place for their sale which requires steps to be taken in the short term. It is critical that the trustees be able to move forward with the sale.

45There is no evidence that Robert is able to pay rent. Allowing him to remain rent free is unfair to the beneficiaries.

46I agree that there is evidence that indicates that Robert interfered with the attendance of a realtor in late 2022 or early 2023, that together with Josie he called police on Sylvia when she attended at Main Street, and that he was not cooperative with Danilo who attended to change the locks. This situation could occur again.

47The Casablanca property appears to be cluttered with wood, tarp shelters, barrels, garbage bags and other items. Although the items appear to be “organized” in piles or gathered in various locations, some if it can best be described as junk or garbage.

48There is no valid reason to prolong Robert’s departure from the properties or to allow him to remain on the properties and potentially cause issues.

49Robert is ordered to vacate Main Street and Casablanca by no later than April 30, 2026.

50Robert and Josie are ordered to remove all their belongings from Main Street and Casablanca.

51A judgment shall issue in accordance with the revised draft judgment at pages F5-F9 of Case Center except that the timelines in the judgment including in paragraphs 2(a) and (c) shall begin on May 1, 2026, rather than the date of the order.

Bordin J.