Stefan Roman Juzkiw

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.

This decision addresses the costs of an application brought by the applicant under the Co-operative Corporations Act, which was dismissed due to the applicant's inability to proceed and lack of proper leave.

The applicant, Angelique Codina, sought injunctive and other relief but failed to obtain the required court order under s. 68(2) of the Act before commencing the action.

The application was adjourned multiple times due to the applicant's incarceration and her inability to effectively pursue the matter or find other co-op members to assume carriage.

The court dismissed the application on procedural grounds and considered the respondents' request for costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents, declining their request for substantial indemnity, as the dismissal was procedural and not on the merits of the allegations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) after the defendant failed to close the transaction.

The defendant's statement of defence alleged fraud or misrepresentation regarding property subdivision, but his affidavit on the motion contradicted this, claiming forgery and incapacity due to medication.

The court found the motion was not premature, ruled the defendant's expert evidence inadmissible due to non-compliance with Rule 53.03, and held the defendant was bound by admissions in his statement of defence.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, awarding damages for breach of contract.

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 Plaintiff sought to amend an existing litigation timetable due to COVID-19 disruptions.

The Defendant opposed remote examinations for discovery, argued for incomplete documentary production, and sought to bring a motion for security for costs.

The court ordered the delivery of sworn affidavits of documents, mandated remote examinations for discovery and mediation if requested, and directed that any motion for security for costs be brought after discoveries.

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.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from a Small Claims Court order, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $5,315.

The plaintiff objected to the late delivery of the bill of costs and requested costs in his own favour despite being unsuccessful.

The court rejected the plaintiff's objections, finding no prejudice from the delay, and awarded the defendant costs fixed at $3,750 all inclusive.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an eviction order, for security for costs, and to dismiss the tenant's appeal.

The tenant, who had not paid rent for eight months, requested an adjournment, which was denied.

The court lifted the automatic stay, finding the appeal appeared frivolous and vexatious, and ordered the tenant to post $2,500 as security for costs and pay $2,970 in costs for the motion.