Stephen Michael Werbowyj

A condominium corporation sought an urgent order for tenants to remove their dangerous dogs after one attacked a resident and her dog.

Despite prior court orders to remove the dogs and muzzle them, the tenants brought them back.

The court found the tenants in breach of multiple orders and determined they were unsuited for communal living, ordering the termination of their tenancy and their eviction from the unit.

The defendant, Mario Ignacio Rossi Diaz-Munoz, brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that authorized the registration of a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on his condominium unit.

The plaintiff, Lina Mao, had obtained the CPL claiming a constructive trust over the unit.

The court found that the ex parte motion should have been brought on notice and, crucially, that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, including a signed residential tenancy agreement, emails confirming a landlord-tenant relationship, and the true nature of the N12 notice to end tenancy.

Due to this gross lack of disclosure and misrepresentation, the motion was granted, and the certificate of pending litigation was discharged.

This costs endorsement follows an application where the applicant successfully challenged the deceased's will due to lack of testamentary capacity but failed on a claim of undue influence against one of the respondents.

The court determined that success was divided, with approximately two-thirds of the litigation pertaining to testamentary capacity and one-third to undue influence.

The applicant was awarded $30,000 from the Estate for her successful claim, while the respondents were awarded $34,750 from the Estate for their successful defense of the undue influence claim.

The court also considered the respondents' conduct, noting undue delays and the introduction of extensive, low-probative medical records.

The applicant sought a declaration of invalidity for the testator's 2007 will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court found suspicious circumstances regarding the 2007 will, shifting the burden of proof to the respondents.

It was determined that the testator lacked testamentary capacity when executing the 2007 will, leading to its invalidation.

The 2006 will was consequently restored as the true last will and testament.

The claim of undue influence was not established.

On a summary judgment motion, the moving party sought equitable subrogation to obtain payment priority over second and third mortgagees after its funds had been used to discharge a first mortgage in a failed mortgage transaction.

The court applied the fairness-focused subrogation framework from appellate authority and held the record was sufficient to decide the issue without a trial under the summary judgment test.

The responding parties failed to adduce admissible evidence showing prejudice, detrimental reliance on registration priority, or a genuine issue requiring trial on alleged negligence and fairness.

The court concluded denial of subrogation would create unjust enrichment because the responding mortgagees would be in a better position than if the first mortgage had not been paid out.

Summary judgment was granted, subrogation relief was ordered, and costs were awarded to the successful moving party.