Stefan Juzkiw

The plaintiffs (landlords) were entirely successful in a landlord and tenant dispute against the defendants, who had failed to pay rent for three years and gamed the system by fabricating a tenancy for an unidentified spouse.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs of $45,842.95 on a substantial indemnity basis.

Furthermore, the court found that the defendants' lawyer had allowed his client to abuse the administration of justice and ordered the lawyer to personally pay the costs if the defendants failed to do so within thirty days.

The plaintiff landlords brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant tenant corporation and its principal for over $300,000 in rent arrears and possession of the residential premises.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to set aside their noting in default.

The court found the defendants had engaged in a bad faith campaign to game the system, occupying the premises rent-free for three years while illegally using it for business purposes.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the noting in default, pierced the corporate veil to hold the principal jointly and severally liable, granted default judgment for the rent arrears, awarded $100,000 in punitive damages, and ordered immediate eviction.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment in a landlord and tenant dispute involving approximately $300,000 in rent arrears.

The defendants resisted and moved to set aside the noting of default.

On the day of the hearing, the parties presented a proposed consent order to terminate the tenancy and grant a writ of possession.

The court declined to issue the order because it mistakenly stated that one of the defendants had been noted in default, failed to properly identify that defendant, and did not address an outstanding counterclaim.

The motion was adjourned to allow the parties to either argue the motion on its merits or resolve the issues.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding parenting time for their five-year-old daughter.

The mother sought supervised access due to concerns about the father's past aggressive conduct and a recent incident resulting in criminal charges and a no-contact order.

The father sought a return to a previous schedule of unsupervised weekend overnights.

The court found that the father's past conduct raised concerns about aggression and ordered that his parenting time be supervised by the paternal grandparents every other weekend, without overnights, to ensure the child's safety and stability.

The plaintiff sought costs of $15,975 following a successful summary judgment motion regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs up to the date of a Rule 49 offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, citing the defendant's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

The defendant argued for reduced costs due to limited means and alleged partial success.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full $15,975 claimed, finding the Rule 49 offer valid and the defendant's conduct in raising unproven fraud allegations justified an enhanced costs award.

The plaintiff brought an action for injuries sustained after slipping and falling on a retaining wall dividing the parking lots of a KFC and a TD Bank.

The remaining defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action on liability.

The court found that the barrier was intended to block vehicles, not for pedestrian crossing, and there was no evidence of regular pedestrian use that would create a duty to maintain it for that purpose.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's evidence regarding the fall was contradictory and unreliable.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The parties settled a commercial tenancy dispute prior to the hearing of their application and cross-application.

However, the court issued an endorsement to address a false statement made by the applicant in a sworn affidavit regarding his travel to China.

After receiving an explanation that the applicant had indeed travelled to China but on a different airline and date than sworn, the court declined to pursue a contempt hearing.

The court cautioned that false statements in affidavits are taken seriously and could preclude equitable remedies such as relief against forfeiture.

The applicant brought a motion to prove a holograph will in solemn form and to be appointed Estate Trustee without an administration bond.

The deceased, who had terminal cancer, wrote a brief note in Farsi leaving his wealth to the applicant, his close friend and caregiver.

The court found the document to be a valid holograph will under section 6 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

However, the court dismissed the motion to dispense with the administration bond without prejudice, citing inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding the value of the estate and its debts.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child support, access, and the sale of jointly owned properties.

The respondent father sought to reduce his child support obligations and obtain unsupervised access, while the applicant mother sought to strike his pleadings for non-compliance with prior orders and obtain carriage of the sale of their properties.

The court dismissed the father's motion to vary support, finding he failed to prove a material change in income, and ordered that his access remain supervised due to anger management issues and the children's special needs.

The court ordered the father to pay arrears from his share of the property sale proceeds and adjourned the mother's motion to strike his pleadings to allow him a final opportunity to provide outstanding disclosure.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from the Central West Region (Milton) to the Toronto Region.

The underlying action involved a commercial lease dispute regarding premises located in Toronto.

The court applied the holistic balancing test under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the proceeding had no rational connection to the Central West Region, the court granted the motion and ordered the action transferred to Toronto.