Condoman Developments Inc. v. Cannect International Mortgage Corporation
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 237
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 31 March 2026
- Posture
- Collection (civil) / Appeal From Superior Court Order Striking Pleadings
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 31 March 2026
- Posture
- Collection (civil) / Appeal From Superior Court Order Striking Pleadings
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge did not err in exercising his discretion to strike the appellants' pleadings for failure to pay the costs award; the appellant had not appealed the underlying judgment and therefore could not raise the fraud issue on this appeal; no justification existed for adjournment or allowing fresh evidence.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Respondents awarded costs in the amount of $25,000 all inclusive
- Appellants' pleadings were properly struck for failure to pay the outstanding costs award of $260,500 (order of the motion judge)
02
Material facts
Parties
Condoman Developments Inc.
Appellant Counsel: Howard Youhanan1808176 Ontario Inc.
Appellant Counsel: Howard YouhananHoward Youhanan
Appellant Counsel: Howard YouhananCannect International Mortgage Corporation
Respondent Counsel: Matthew P. Gottlieb; Dantae GagnierCannect Mortgage Investment Corporation
Respondent Counsel: Matthew P. Gottlieb; Dantae GagnierLookout Condoman Development Inc.
Respondent Counsel: Matthew P. Gottlieb; Dantae GagnierTheodopolis Development Corp.
Respondent Counsel: Matthew P. Gottlieb; Dantae Gagnier2638169 Ontario Inc.
Respondent Counsel: Matthew P. Gottlieb; Dantae Gagnier2638170 Ontario Inc.
Respondent Counsel: Matthew P. Gottlieb; Dantae GagnierMarcus Tzaferis
Respondent Counsel: Matthew P. Gottlieb; Dantae GagnierAmounts and remedies
- Outstanding Costs Award Ordered by Motion Judge: CAD 260,500
- Costs Ordered by Court of Appeal: CAD 25,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Collection (civil) / Appeal From Superior Court Order Striking Pleadings
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the motion judge erred in striking the appellants' pleadings for failure to pay a costs award
- 02
Whether fresh evidence alleging a fraudulent signature could properly be introduced on this appeal
- 03
Whether an adjournment to permit further evidence was warranted
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellants sought leave to file fresh evidence and an adjournment to pursue a claim that the debt resulted from a fraudulent signature and argued the striking of pleadings was inappropriate in the circumstances.
- Respondent
- Respondents argued the motion judge properly exercised his discretion to strike pleadings for non‑payment of a costs award, the appellant conceded non‑payment, the underlying judgment by Koehnen J. was not appealed so the fraud issue was not properly before this court, and there was no basis for adjournment.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order of Superior Court of Justice (2025 ONSC 3752) and appellate standards of review
A motion judge has discretion to strike pleadings for non‑payment of a costs award.
- 02
Koehnen J. judgment (2025 ONSC 4529) and doctrine of finality
Issues decided by an unappealed judgment cannot be relitigated on a collateral appeal; finality and res judicata bar raising those issues here.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge did not err in exercising his discretion to strike the appellants' pleadings for failure to pay the costs award; the appellant had not appealed the underlying judgment and therefore could not raise the fraud issue on this appeal; no justification existed for adjournment or allowing fresh evidence.
Obiter and limits
- The motion judge's significant history with the case supported deference to his discretionary decision.
- The appellant's concession of non‑payment was material to the court's refusal to grant relief
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Respondents awarded costs in the amount of $25,000 all inclusive
- Appellants' pleadings were properly struck for failure to pay the outstanding costs award of $260,500 (order of the motion judge)
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 31 March 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 31 March 2026
Condoman Developments Inc. v. Cannect International Mortgage Corporation Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-03-31 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 237 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0999 Judges Rouleau, Paul S.; Thorburn, Julie; Favreau, Lise G. Subject Civil Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Condoman Developments Inc. v. Cannect International Mortgage Corporation, 2026 ONCA 237 DATE: 20260331 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0999 Rouleau, Thorburn and Favreau JJ.A.
BETWEEN Condoman Developments Inc., 1808176 Ontario Inc. and Howard Youhanan Plaintiffs/Defendants by Counterclaim (Appellants) and Cannect International Mortgage Corporation*, Cannect Mortgage Investment Corporation*, Lookout Condoman Development Inc., Theodopolis Development Corp., 2638169 Ontario Inc., 2638170 Ontario Inc. and Marcus Tzaferis* Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (Respondents*) Howard Youhanan, acting in person for the appellants Matthew P. Gottlieb and Dantae Gagnier, for the respondents Heard and rendered orally: March 26, 2026 On appeal from the order of Justice Edward M. Morgan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 25, 2025, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 3752.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an appeal from an order striking the appellant’s pleadings for failure to pay a costs award in the amount of $260,500. This was an exercise of the motion judge’s discretion. In the particular circumstances of this matter and given the motion judge’s significant history with this case, we see no error in the motion judge’s exercise of his discretion to strike the appellant’s pleadings. [2] Today, the appellant seeks to file fresh evidence to demonstrate that the debt is the result of a fraudulent signature. He seeks to adjourn the appeal to file further evidence in pursuit of his position that there was a fraud. The problem with this position is that Koehnen J. has already granted judgment to the respondents and the appellant has not appealed that decision: Condoman Developments Inc. v. Cannect International Mortgage Corporation, 2025 ONSC 4529. The issue of whether a fraud was perpetuated is not properly raised before this court in the context of this appeal. The appellant concedes he has made no payment on the outstanding costs award. The appellant has not raised any issues that would justify an adjournment or justify allowing the appeal from the motion judge’s decision striking his pleadings. [3] The appeal is dismissed. [4] We order costs payable to the respondents, in the amount of $25,000 all inclusive. “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “Thorburn J.A.” “L. Favreau J.A.”
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.