Stefan Cyr is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2013 to 2016.

What courts has Stefan Cyr appeared in?

Stefan Cyr has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Stefan Cyr handled?

Stefan Cyr has 3 cases on record from 2013 to 2016.

What judges has Stefan Cyr appeared before?

Stefan Cyr has most frequently appeared before Justice Colin McKinnon, Justice Stanley J. Kershman, Justice C. McKinnon.

Stefan Cyr | Lawyer

3 total

Osman v. Heath, 2016 ONSC 6414

Following a trial regarding adverse possession where the respondents were completely successful, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs based on offers to settle, while the applicants argued the case was novel and no costs should be awarded.

The court rejected the applicants' argument, finding the case was a classic adverse possession dispute.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs fixed at $53,605.26, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

SCJOct 17, 2016

Respondent Counsel

Osman v Heath, 2016 ONSC 4812

The Applicants sought a declaration of ownership over a portion of a shed straddling a property line, claiming adverse possession.

The Respondents, and their predecessors in title, had openly, continuously, and exclusively possessed and renovated the shed since at least 1990, effectively excluding the true owner.

The court found that the Respondents and their predecessors had acquired the rear portion of the shed (Part 1 on Plan 15R-10725) through adverse possession by 2000.

Additionally, the court found that the Applicants had acquired an overhanging roof of a commercial shed (Part 3 on Plan 15R-10725) on the Residential Property through adverse possession.

SCJJul 26, 2016

Applicant Counsel

Re Matthews, 2013 ONSC 1700

A creditor brought a motion under ss. 62(2.1) and 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking a declaration that a debt arising from a financed travel trailer purchase was not released by the debtor’s consumer proposal due to alleged fraudulent misrepresentation in a credit application.

The creditor argued the debtor failed to disclose an existing mortgage, which would have affected the lending decision.

The court found the debtor had disclosed a monthly mortgage payment in the application and that the documentation had been prepared by a dealership representative rather than the debtor or creditor.

The court concluded the representation was not false and that the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation under s. 178(1)(e) were not established.

The creditor’s motion seeking a declaration that the debt survived the proposal was dismissed.

Applicant Counsel