Lusink v. Disterheft

Lusink v. Disterheft

The Court of Appeal held the motion judge did not deny natural justice because the appellant was provided extensive written submission, an adjournment to permit the judge to read them, a full opportunity to answer questions and make submissions, and the judge provided reserved, detailed reasons; therefore the vexatious litigant declaration and attendant orders were upheld and the appeals dismissed.

Citation
2013 ONCA 764
Parties
Applicants (c57134): John Lusink; Janet Mather; Al Orlando; Gino Romanese; Kevin Somers; Ryan Duffy; Lyle Hamilton; Theodore Babiak; Emily Babiak; Brookfield Real Estate Services Manager Limited; Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd.; Brookfield Asset Management Inc.; Applicants (c57135): Ian Ihnatowycz; Donna Ihnatowycz; Vincent Joseph Murphy; Adrienne Olga Murphy; Matthew Julian Murphy; Adrianna Katherine Murphy; Katharyne Roxalana Goshulak; Mary Amilia Parzei; Nykola Leon Parzei; Stephanie Daria Parzei; Katheryne Olha Parzei; John Ostap Goshulak; Debra Lenore Goshulak-Morningstar; Peter John Goshulak; Emily Ann Goshulak; Larissa Morningstar Daria Goshulak; Daria Anna Goshulak; Marta Witer; James Temerty; Louise Temerty; First Generation Capital Inc.; Applicants (c57136): Leslie Ferenec; Bob Onyschuk; Michael Babin; Dawn Babin; Borys Wrzesnewskyj; Ruslana Wrzesnewskyj; Myroslawa Anna Diakun; Murray Baker; Respondent (appellant): Terry Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Motria Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak-Disterheft a.k.a. Motria Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Goshulak a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Luba Goshulak; and business names Bliss’que Executive Coaching; Perlova Platinum; Koronex; Bliss’que International Global Investing Company Ltd.; Perlova Canada Limited; Optic Fibre Grow Inc.; Fibre Sun Ltd.; John Does No. 1 to 100
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orders of Superior Court of Justice Declaring Appellant a Vexatious Litigant; Court of Appeal Decision on Procedural Fairness and Costs
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; motion judge's orders declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant upheld
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant Declaration, Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Vexatious Litigant Declaration Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Lusink; Janet Mather; Al Orlando; Gino Romanese; Kevin Somers; Ryan Duffy; Lyle Hamilton; Theodore Babiak; Emily Babiak; Brookfield Real Estate Services Manager Limited; Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd.; Brookfield Asset Management Inc.

Applicants (c57134)

Ian Ihnatowycz; Donna Ihnatowycz; Vincent Joseph Murphy; Adrienne Olga Murphy; Matthew Julian Murphy; Adrianna Katherine Murphy; Katharyne Roxalana Goshulak; Mary Amilia Parzei; Nykola Leon Parzei; Stephanie Daria Parzei; Katheryne Olha Parzei; John Ostap Goshulak; Debra Lenore Goshulak-Morningstar; Peter John Goshulak; Emily Ann Goshulak; Larissa Morningstar Daria Goshulak; Daria Anna Goshulak; Marta Witer; James Temerty; Louise Temerty; First Generation Capital Inc.

Applicants (c57135)

Leslie Ferenec; Bob Onyschuk; Michael Babin; Dawn Babin; Borys Wrzesnewskyj; Ruslana Wrzesnewskyj; Myroslawa Anna Diakun; Murray Baker

Applicants (c57136)

Terry Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Motria Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak-Disterheft a.k.a. Motria Disterheft a.k.a. Terry Goshulak a.k.a. Terry Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Motria Goshulak a.k.a. Luba Goshulak; and business names Bliss’que Executive Coaching; Perlova Platinum; Koronex; Bliss’que International Global Investing Company Ltd.; Perlova Canada Limited; Optic Fibre Grow Inc.; Fibre Sun Ltd.; John Does No. 1 to 100

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orders of Superior Court of Justice Declaring Appellant a Vexatious Litigant; Court of Appeal Decision on Procedural Fairness and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was denied natural justice by being deprived of allocated hearing time
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge properly exercised discretion in hearing procedure and arriving at the vexatious litigant declaration
  3. 3 Whether respondents were entitled to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held the motion judge did not deny natural justice because the appellant was provided extensive written submission, an adjournment to permit the judge to read them, a full opportunity to answer questions and make submissions, and the judge provided reserved, detailed reasons; therefore the vexatious litigant declaration and attendant orders were upheld and the appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; motion judge's orders declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant upheld

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • Respondents in CV-12-460776 and CV-12-460915 are each awarded costs in the amount of $1,000 including disbursements and H.S.T.