Ross v. Luypaert

Ross v. Luypaert

The appeal is dismissed: the Court of Appeal concluded it had jurisdiction under s.6(2) CJA; the application judge did not err in refusing an adjournment or in enforcing the peremptory timetable; the judge properly applied the law in ordering partition and sale because the appellant failed to meet the burden to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2025 ONCA 236
Parties
Applicants (respondents): Regine Ross by her litigation guardians Sibylle Marcelle Renee Francine Dilella and Loraine Mary Hagen; Applicants (respondents): John Douglas Ross by his litigation guardian Sibylle Marcelle Renee Francine Dilella; Respondent (appellant): Rene Luypaert
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Partition and Possession / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (application)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Partition and Sale, Writ of Possession, Powers of Attorney and Capacity, Adjournment and Procedural Fairness, Appellate Jurisdiction Under Courts of Justice Act S.6(2)
Source Language
english
Property Law Civil Procedure Capacity and Estate Administration Partition and Sale Writ of Possession Powers of Attorney and Capacity Adjournment and Procedural Fairness Appellate Jurisdiction Under Courts of Justice Act S.6(2)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regine Ross by her litigation guardians Sibylle Marcelle Renee Francine Dilella and Loraine Mary Hagen

Applicants (respondents)

John Douglas Ross by his litigation guardian Sibylle Marcelle Renee Francine Dilella

Applicants (respondents)

Rene Luypaert

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Partition and Possession / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal involving relief under the Partition Act when additional relief was granted under the Rules of Civil Procedure
  2. 2 Whether the application judge committed procedural unfairness by refusing an adjournment and excluding late affidavit evidence
  3. 3 Whether the application judge erred in granting partition and sale under the Partition Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed: the Court of Appeal concluded it had jurisdiction under s.6(2) CJA; the application judge did not err in refusing an adjournment or in enforcing the peremptory timetable; the judge properly applied the law in ordering partition and sale because the appellant failed to meet the burden to defeat the application; the writ of possession was properly granted given sole ownership and absence of tenancy; challenges to the powers of attorney and capacity lacked evidentiary basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order granting partition and sale of 82 Galt Street (Galt Property) is upheld