Prezi

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in the manual

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Untitled Prezi

No description
by Ian Wilkinson on 8 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Untitled Prezi

2012 2012 July 20/12
Court of
Appeal Hearing Affidavit of Tom Reinhart, Murray Cawston, James Sprott, Steve Martin. Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Lawyer Correspondence:
Kathy Ritsma & Martha Cooke 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 July 2012 August 2012 October 2012 September 2012 Received From Subject Size Categories
06/07/2012 Ian Wilkinson RE: Wilkinson - Letter to K. Ritsma 10 KB Orange Category From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
CC: Jody@cooklaw.ca
Subject: RE: Wilkinson - Letter to K. Ritsma
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:30:06 +0000
To confirm, you want me to send the executed Minutes of Settlement at $375K to K. Ritsma, with the attached correspondence? Please confirm by return email.



From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 12:13 PM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: RE: Wilkinson - Letter to K. Ritsma

Assuming you have not sent the letters yet I think the following ...

1. send them over all the bad news about the oil tank (Anneli suggests that the first line of the letter be changed to say something like ' Recently the house was inspected by Peter Maranger for the purpose of Ian obtaining house insurance and an underground storage tank was discovered.) I don't really care either way.
2. The offer should be $375,000.00 or a discount up to the amount of the actual cost (funds held in reserve or something). My mom will want to discuss this with my siblings so she really needs to get this all for the week end otherwise it will be yet another week before we get any feedback.

Thanks for the legislation ... I will review it asap.



________________________________________
From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: Jody@cooklaw.ca
CC: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: Wilkinson - Letter to K. Ritsma
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 05:06:23 +0000
Here is the cover letter to Ritsma. Subject to Ian’s comments, it should be finalized for my signature. Hi Martha ...

Here is a forward from Jason ... please read it and then consider the following ...

- basically we are short $20,000.00. This is a result of the new rules (75% not 80%) and the self employed restrictions. Jason will try to work around that with a second mortgage (which we are gonna need anyway) and Anneli and I will try to figure out a solution. However barring either of those the option only other option I see is that the house is sold for $400,000.00 but my mom take back a second mortgage herself so that she gets $380,000 up front and a lein for $20,000.00.

- the second point is that for me ... and Anneli the value of this whole deal is beginning to loose its appeal. We have found out that we have to remove an oil tank beneath the front porch to get insurance (with required environmental testing it could cost $10,000.00 or more). Further there has been a severe leak in the second floor bathroom which has caused damage to the living room ceiling (which was already sagging). Further all the knob and tube wiring has to be replaced as well as any cast iron plumbing. These are significant and previously unconsidered costs.

- I have tried to take the last part of june rent over at least three times but was unable to. I had hoped to give it to you to send over with the new offer and then we'd be done. We have put significant money into the place even in the last 6 months with the kid's rooms and the getting ready for the new appraisal. We have been undermined further by having to pay for expenses for most of the house which we don't use and not being able to rent a couple of rooms even to friends to make up for it.

The upshot I guess is that we want to make an offer as described above ($380,000.00 + $20,000.00) as this is the best I can do. The $20,000.00 would be a short term thing until I can refinance a second mortgage (which will be MUCH easier to do once I am already on title). I would pay off the $20,000.00 asap and they would retain a lein with interest until paid. The transfer would still have to be done as per the settlement with an undertaking from Ritsma to give back the extra). This is the only way I can see through a deal actually getting done.

If not then we will come up with rent for July so that we are paid up to date by the appeal day and take our chances with that. The 'landlord' will have to deal with the problems describe above as those are not really my issue if they aren't going to sell to me.

We need to figure out how to approach the other side with all this. Let me know.


thanks

Ian


________________________________________

FSCO Lic M08001270
Phone 519 886-7887
Fax 519 886-6663
Toll Free 1 888 703-6290
www.mortgageintelligence.ca/JasonBreau


From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:14 PM
To: Jason Breau
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage

k thanks for the update but you still don't know yourself what the appraisal came in at?


________________________________________



________________________________________
From: jason.breau@migroup.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:18:59 -0400
The only condition they are telling me is the 6 months proof of the mortgage being paid as agreed. They are waiting on site inspection which they are telling me that will be complete today.

Jason Breau
Mortgage Intelligence
FSCO Lic M08001270
Phone 519 886-7887
Fax 519 886-6663
Toll Free 1 888 703-6290
www.mortgageintelligence.ca/JasonBreau


From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 12:58 PM
To: martha@cooklaw.ca; Jason Breau
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage

I have an inspection from my potential new home insurer Co-operators set for today. This is to be ready by July 4 if needed.
There is nothing more I can do to be ready. Is Anneli required to have received independent legal counsel prior to July 4?

________________________________________
From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: jason.breau@migroup.ca
CC: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: Wilkinson Mortgage
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:36:57 +0000
Jason,

Where is this appraisal? Given the structure of the deal, we cannot finalize the terms of the deal without the appraisal being in hand and approved by the Lender. At this point, Ian’s real estate lawyer is advising that they cannot complete by July 4. We need to push closing out by 5-10 days so that we can finalize matters between the parties with the appraisal in hand.

Please talk to the Lender and get confirmation of the appraisal to me asap.

Martha Cook
MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
10 Downie Street, Suite 302
Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
Tel: (519) 275-3888
Fax: (519) 275-3885
martha@cooklaw.ca From: jason.breau@migroup.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:46:07 -0400
Ok here is where we stand…The appraisal came in at $541k this time around and the appraiser pushed it to get it there. So this is now the number we have to work with and at 75% gives us $405,750.00 which is going to leave us short paying out the CRA which we need to do still. I have some feelers out for a small 2nd but if you can think of different way to come up with the difference I’m all ears…Thoughts?

Jason Breau
Mortgage Intelligence
FSCO Lic M08001270
Phone 519 886-7887
Fax 519 886-6663
Toll Free 1 888 703-6290
www.mortgageintelligence.ca/JasonBreau


From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:59 PM
To: Jason Breau
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage

hmmmm ... that makes me concerned

... on one hand I didn't think there was anything left to 'delve' into (I've had enough twists and turn to make me dizzy)

... but on the other hand I can't imagine they would do a drive by if I didn't meet their appraisal standards in the first place as what would be the point.

soooooo ... I guess we're gonna be on edge for another day at least ...

if that is what must be ...

________________________________________
From: jason.breau@migroup.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:18:32 -0400
I do but I want to wait and make sure everything is ok before I delved into it with you…

Jason Breau
Mortgage Intelligence From: jason.breau@migroup.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:10:58 -0400
No a realtor does a drive by and then does some work via MLS…Just a verification on top of a verification!

Jason Breau
Mortgage Intelligence
FSCO Lic M08001270
Phone 519 886-7887
Fax 519 886-6663
Toll Free 1 888 703-6290
www.mortgageintelligence.ca/JasonBreau


From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:08 PM
To: Jason Breau
Cc: martha@cooklaw.ca
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage

are they supposed to call me and arrange a time?

________________________________________
From: jason.breau@migroup.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 10:15:31 -0400
Hi Ian
The lender is waiting on a separate site inspection that they do on all properties they do mortgages on. They were expecting it for Friday but it did not show up so fingers are crossed for today. Thanks for your patience!

Jason Breau
Mortgage Intelligence
FSCO Lic M08001270
Phone 519 886-7887
Fax 519 886-6663
Toll Free 1 888 703-6290
www.mortgageintelligence.ca/JasonBreau


From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Jason Breau
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage

thanks Jason ... Would be happy to chat about all of this. Good luck with the LSUC practice review. That is stressful, I know. My December is shaping up ok. Do you want pencil in Monday Dec 10 after work?

You can email customerservices@tssa.org or call them at 1.877.682.8772. Ask for an underground fuel storage tank inspection.

From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson00755@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:30 PM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: Re: Process serving and other things

by the way ... who would I contact to inform about the oil tank at the house if you know?


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Ian Wilkinson <iangwilkinson00755@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Martha

I have been really busy as well particularly getting ready for a law society practice review I have on Thursday this week. As if I need that right now! My schedule is more open in December ... except for the 5th when I am in Hamilton doing a careless driving defence.

I wanted to bring you up to speed on my case as it sits ... just fyi if you are interested. Moreso however I wanted to discuss the office situation there as I am trying to figure out what my plans are. As well I wanted to get on the same page with you about what is happening with the billing I have from you. I like things 'straight up' and clear so that we both understand what is agreed and expected.

No rush for this so just lemme know when you schedule clears.

Thanks

Ian

p.s. You said you had a name for someone from the official guardian office. Can you tell me that?

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Martha Cook <martha@cooklaw.ca> wrote:
Hi Ian,

Got your letter. Thanks. I will definitely call you about service/filing.
Would be happy to have another chat. Too bad the weather won't allow for patio sitting, but alas, winter is almost upon us.
If you want to tell me which page we're talking about, it would help me be more prepared for any discussion more weighty than the weather.

I am pretty tied up this week but could do something end of day on Monday or Tuesday next week.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Wilkinson
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:36 AM
To: Martha Cook

Hi Martha

I have been working getting myself reoriented with resettling and have finally gotten the process serving thing going. You may have received one of the marketing letter I sent out last week.

I think maybe it would be good to have another 'sit down' talk sometime because I would like to get on the same page with you about some things.

Hope that works for you. Let me know.

Thanks


Ian I would not recommend muddying the waters with justice grace by bringing a separate motion for Anneli. It does not improve the optics and in fact could attract ire that you were renting out space - besides which her being on notice since the beginning will dilute the sense of urgency that you can bring to the motion. This increases your sense of duty and responsibility, I know, but when the dust settles you will be together with the kids wherever you land. Think of pro athletes that get traded overnight and find themselves on the opposite coast on a moments notice. Families do this , and the rest is the headspace you do it in

Martha Cook
Martha Cook P.C.
Sent from my mobile device








________________________________________
MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
10 Downie Street, Suite 302
Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
Tel: (519) 275-3888
Fax: (519) 275-3885
martha@cooklaw.ca







________________________________________
From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: DRAFT Order re stay
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:24:58 +0000
I won't be in the office until after you go so why don't i stop by later with some materials and i can xommission anything you need done them

Martha Cook
Martha Cook P.C.
Sent from my mobile device



> From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: RE: DRAFT Order re stay
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:22:29 +0000
>
> Hmmm, what you are doing is technically two separate motions. The first is the urgent ex parte motion and the second is the bigger interim possession motion. You may have to pay 2X fees. My concern is that if they don't have the court file from the Stratford office they can't really take any filing of paperwork there. All you could do is have the Order issued and entered, and then the court staff would transfer everything to Stratford.
>
> To be frank, I don't know what the staff are going to do. Take a copy of the Notice of Motion with you and keep it to show the Judge. Pay your motion fee, and just ask the judge what do to next. If s/he is concerned about making the urgent order, ask to stand it down, call me and I will service and file the Notice of Motion with proof of service and fax it to London for you.
>
>
> Martha Cook
> MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
> 10 Downie Street, Suite 302
> Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
> Tel: (519) 275-3888
> Fax: (519) 275-3885
> martha@cooklaw.ca
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Try: http://stratfordbeaconherald.classifiedextra.ca/cgi-bin/search/index.cgi

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Wilkinson
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 10:31 PM
To: Martha Cook

tried to got to this link you sent me for accomodation ...
but it did not work



________________________________

From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: More Accomodation Information
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:20:43 +0000


file:///N:/Clients%20-%20Active/Wilkinson,%20Ian%20re%20Douglas%20St/Rental%20Info.htm http://www.sallysplace.com/index.htm

I don't know if they rent by the week/month during theatre season but make sure to ask. Please tell them that I referred you.

I will contact my other landlord types and find out what else is available.


Martha Cook
MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
10 Downie Street, Suite 302
Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
Tel: (519) 275-3888
Fax: (519) 275-3885
martha@cooklaw.ca



-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Wilkinson
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:02 AM
To: Martha Cook

Thanks Martha ...

and let me say yes ... I do consider you a friend ... one that has stuck by me in the worst of times and you know I will always be appreciative of that. That is one silver lining in this whole thing.

1. Yes please have her send them ... better to have and not need than need and not have.
2. I will take your advice on this ... but I noted that one of the cases here has 'Gorman' as one of the cousels but I am not sure if it is her.
3. so I just go file the motion today and get it heard tomorrow? or do I have to wait till next week for it to be heard.


Yes I would like any info you have on accomodation. We don't know what we are going to do ...

As for the rent I was aware of that potential problem. However, we did pay the rent every month except July and for that we are going to present the roof repair bill for the back section of the house (I have a email from Trevor in 2010 asking that it be done and it was an emergency repair).

Thanks always

Ian




> From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: RE: Draft Order from Appeal
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:10:20 +0000
>
> Ian,
>
> 1. Not sure quite what you mean by this question. I served Notices of Examination on all of your mum's affiants. I can have Jody scan the notices to you but I don't think it will assist in the motion for interlocutory relief.
>
> 2. You can't. If Gorman shows up, you can object to her hearing the motion but I would not do that. There is no evidence of actual bias although out of an abundance of caution she might recuse herself if you say something.
>
> 3. You don't have time - the bringing of the motion is not going to stay the operation of the writ unless your mum consents to hold off until the motion is dealt with.
>
> Ian, as a friend, which I think I am, I urge you to reconsider the house. In my respectful opinion, your time is better spent looking for alternate housing for the short term anyway. I have contact info for a really nice B&B that you can do longer term rentals at about what you are paying at the house. Let me know if you need the info.
>
> Your ability to get the stay is going to be hampered by the fact that you did not pay the rents in the first stay order. If you do proceed, make sure you address this issue. You must explain your failure to abide by the terms of the original stay order in order to succeed here.
>
>
> Martha Cook
> MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
> 10 Downie Street, Suite 302
> Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
> Tel: (519) 275-3888
> Fax: (519) 275-3885
> martha@cooklaw.ca
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Wilkinson
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 9:55 AM
> To: Martha Cook
>
> Hi Martha
>
> Sorry for this but three more questions ...
> 1) did you actually file supeona's on any of the affidavits ?
> 2) how do I make sure I don't get Gorman (just ask the Clerk who is on what day?)
> 3) should I try to get what you called a 'special appointment' to have this heard ?
>
> Anneli is filing a Tenant application with the Tribunal which I will file as an exhibit
>
> thanks again for everything you have done
>
> Ian
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: Draft Order from Appeal
> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:41:12 +0000
>
>
> No it's done in writing like last time. You need to stay the writ by tuesday even if you get an interim interlocutory order until the materials can be completed properly.
>
> Martha Cook
> Martha Cook P.C.
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> On 2012-08-08, at 11:31 AM, "Ian Wilkinson" <iangwilkinson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> one question ...
> can I supeona my mom to the motion hearing?
>
>
>
> > From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> > To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> > CC: Jody@cooklaw.ca
> > Subject: Draft Order from Appeal
> > Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:31:16 +0000
> >
> > I have received the draft Order to be taken out at the Court of Appeal, attached. Please provide any comments you have.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fax [mailto:fax@cooklaw.ca]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:47 PM
> > To: Fax Forward
> > Subject: Fax Forward from a Xerox WorkCentre
> >
> > Please open the attached document. It contains a copy of a Received Fax.
> >
> > Attachment File Type: pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Culliton Law has received mortgage instructions for closing next week. Do you want me to make a last attempt with Ritsma?

Martha Cook
Martha Cook P.C.
Sent from my mobile device

Begin forwarded message:
From: Sandy Bates <sbates@cullitonlaw.com>
Date: 10 August, 2012 6:56:44 AM EDT
To: Martha Cook <martha@cooklaw.ca>
Subject: Ian Wilkinson
Good Morning!

I received a set of Mortgage Instructions from Home Trust with a closing date of today, August 10, 2012.
I’m assuming this is not happening and that they just sent them out because they just don’t get it.

I am going to file these and wait until we get some serious instructions.

Sandy



Sandy Bates
Law Clerk


145 Ontario St.
P.O. Box 69
Stratford, ON N5A 6S8
Phone: 519-275-3330
Fax: 519-275-3331
Email: sbates@cullitonlaw.com

This email is directed in confidence solely to the addressee(s), and may not be distributed, copied or disclosed. The contents of this email may also be subject to solicitor-client privilege and all rights to that privilege are expressly claimed and not waived. If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately by telephone, return and permanently delete the email. From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 9:11 AM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: RE: Ian Wilkinson

by the way

Anneli and I went to serve the claim on my mom ... we had a few mins before Wendy came out of the bathroom screeming ...
but the thing is ... my mom did NOT seem to know that there was an Offer on the table nor that we were being evicted.

dont' know what I can do about any of that
From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 9:11 AM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: RE: Ian Wilkinson

by the way

Anneli and I went to serve the claim on my mom ... we had a few mins before Wendy came out of the bathroom screeming ...
but the thing is ... my mom did NOT seem to know that there was an Offer on the table nor that we were being evicted.

dont' know what I can do about any of that Kathryn,

Culliton Law received mortgage instructions from Ian’s Lender, and it would appear that there is one last clear chance to resolve all matters between our clients on the basis of the current financing offer. Ian Wilkinson offers to settle all matters, including the outstanding costs order on the application and appeal, and the current action, on the basis of the Minutes of Settlement, executed by Ian and attached to this email. The content of the Minutes follow my letter of July 6, 2012 (a copy of which is attached for ease of reference) regarding the unlawful, abandoned underground storage tank located on the property under the wrap-around porch of the house.

Ian’s offer as attached is open for acceptance until 3pm next Tuesday, August 14th. I will have an original execution copy delivered to your office today for presentation to Doreen Wilkinson. Given the writ is due to be executed on Wednesday, Ian would appreciate hearing from your client as soon as possible, one way or the other, so that he can arrange his affairs.

Finally, further to my email attaching the Order approved as to form and content, may I please have a copy of the Order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario as issued and entered, for my files.

Martha Cook Yup, I am on my cellphone at 519-301-7758. Text or call. I am picking my son up from camp up near Tobermory tomorrow but will be back in the afternoon and can commission something on Saturday or Sunday.

Have you filed your notice of motion yet? If not, make sure you file it 1st thing on Monday in Stratford even if the motion record proper is not ready- you can file the proper motion record later. You are still going to need to argue the RJR-McDonald case and persuade the judge that you meet all three aspects of the legal test on a motion for a stay - this is kind of set out in the early stay materials (1. Serious issue to be tried; 2. Uncompensable prejudice if order not made; and 3. Balance of convenience). Rompspen v. 151, attached, has a nice treatment of what is considered at this stage.

An affidavit from Brian could assist in further demonstrating potential prejudice to you should the writ proceed.

Your biggest hurdle is the serious issue and you will need to explain the serious issue based on the statement of claim, affidavit evidence and the law of resulting and/or constructive trust (see Memo, attached). Even the Court of Appeal struggled with (read: rejected) my submission that your claim for unjust enrichment can give rise to a constructive trust over a portion of the house equal to the unjust enrichment. I am sending you the key cases to demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be tried. You will want to have these cases with you along with your Mum's earlier affidavits showing that she does not occupy the home and that she intends to list and sell. As you learned in front of Tausenfreund, J., lack of prejudice to your mother is almost certain to win the day on such an urgent issue.

Martha Cook
MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
10 Downie Street, Suite 302
Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
Tel: (519) 275-3888
Fax: (519) 275-3885
martha@cooklaw.ca Ian,

The current offer has expired and will have to be novated – this will keep happening because of the closing date issue. Here is a draft that you can use. You need to insert the new action number in paragraph 7. If you need your signature witnessed, you are welcome to stop by the office today.

How about Friday afternoon for a drink/meeting?





From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:59 PM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: RE: meeting

Hi

and OMG the family still thinks that my offer is not real ... that I have to go through more hoops or something ...
can I confirm with you that all my mom has to do is sign the dam document?

Been really busy myself so tomorrow or Friday or even the w.e. is good I guess.

Any place that we can have a drink and sit in a booth so our conversation is at least a bit private.

thanks

Ian


________________________________________
From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: meeting
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:10:07 +0000
Hi Ian,
Absolutely. I have been super-busy with other matters (I have 3 matters on the motions list tomorrow) but after tomorrow my schedule will be way better. When/where?

From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 4:31 PM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: meeting

Hi Martha

I would like to meet with you when you have time just to discuss a couple of things. Not like it has to be today ... as we are still very disorganized but it really should be soon. Maybe meet outside the office for a change ... just a more informal environment.

thanks

Ian Court File No.: C54936

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:

DOREEN WILKINSON
Applicant
(Respondent in Appeal)
and


IAN WILKINSON
Respondent
(Appellant)

MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT

THE PARTIES HERETO agree to settle this appeal on the following terms:

1. Doreen Wilkinson (“Doreen”) shall transfer title to the real property known as 98 Douglas Street, Stratford, ON in the City of Stratford and legally described as Lot 480 and Lot 481, Plan 20, being all of PIN 53151-0080 (LT) (the “Property”) to Ian Wilkinson (“Ian”) by way of a transaction as follows:

a) the title transfer from Doreen to Ian shall be held in escrow pending Ian placing a new mortgage on the Property and delivering cash consideration of CDN$375,000.00 to Doreen, subject to adjustments, by bank draft or certified cheque, at closing;

b) the transaction shall close before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 5, 2012;

c) Doreen shall provide written acknowledgment that any value in the Property over $375,000.00 is to be transferred to Ian in consideration of Ian’s claims as set out in his affidavits sworn in support of his response to Ontario Superior Court (Stratford) File No. 2263-11 and in consideration of any past, present, or future claim against Doreen and her Estate, executors and powers of attorney in relation to the Property and for any and all claims for compensation, past, present or future, of any kind by Ian in relation to Doreen and her Estate;

d) Ian shall accept Doreen’s lawyer’s personal undertaking to obtain, out of the cash consideration, a discharge in registrable form and to register same or cause same to be registered, on title within a reasonable period of time after completion, provided that on or before completion, Doreen shall provide to Ian a mortgage statement prepared by her mortgagee setting out the balance required to obtain a discharge, and a direction executed by Doreen directing payment to the mortgagee of the amount required to obtain the discharge out of the balance due upon completion;

e) Ian and Doreen will provide whatever documentation is reasonably requested by Ian’s financing company in satisfaction of the conditions of financing, including these Minutes of Settlement;

f) The chattels to be included in the purchase price are set out in Schedule A as well as the personal property of Ian Wilkinson and Anneli Grogan that is currently in the Property. All other chattels are excluded from the purchase price (the "Excluded Chattels"). Excluded Chattels shall be removed by Doreen at her own expense on date to be selected by Doreen between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Ian agrees not to be present in the premises while the Excluded Chattels are removed from the premises but reserves the right to appoint an agent or representative to be in attendance;

g) Ian shall be allowed until 6:00 pm on the 30th day of August, 2012 to examine title to the property at his own expense to satisfy himself that there are no outstanding work orders or deficiency notices affecting the property relating to any work completed prior to July 23, 2010 when Doreen vacated the Property and that its present use (single family residential) may be lawfully continued and that the principal building may be insured against risk of fire. Doreen shall provide written consent, if required, that the municipality or other governmental agencies releasing to Ian details of all outstanding work order and deficiency notices affecting the property, and Doreen agrees to execute and deliver such further authorization in this regard as Ian may reasonably require;

h) Ian and Doreen agree that there are no representations or warranties of any kind that the future intended use of the Property by Ian is or will be lawful;

i) Upon completion, vacant possession of the Property shall be given to Ian;

j) Ian acknowledges having had the opportunity to inspect the Property and specifically acknowledges that upon signing of these Minutes of Settlement there shall be a binding agreement between Ian and Doreen with respect to the transfer of title of the Property;

k) Ian acknowledges that he is aware of the existence of an underground oil storage tank on the Property and of the potential for environmental problems related to such underground oil storage tank, and further acknowledges that he is aware of the existence of knob and tube wiring, cast iron plumbing and other Building Code deficiencies in the Property, and agrees to purchase the property on an “as is” basis without any warranties whatsoever, whether legal, contractual or equitable, in the Property’s present state and condition, and at his own risk;

l) All buildings on the Property and all other things being purchased shall be and remain until completion at the risk of Doreen. Pending completion, Doreen shall hold all insurance policies, if any, and the proceeds thereof in trust for the parties as their interests may appear and in the event of substantial damage, Ian shall take the proceeds of any insurance and complete the transactions contemplated by these Minutes of Settlement;

m) Any rents, mortgage interest, realty taxes including local improvement rates and unmetered public or private utility charges and unmetered cost of fuel, as applicable, shall be apportioned and allowed to the day of completion, the date of completion itself to be apportioned to Ian;

n) Any tender of documents or money hereunder may be made upon Ian or Doreen or their respective lawyers on the day set for completion. Money may be tendered by bank draft or cheque certified by a Chartered Bank, Trust Company, Province of Ontario Savings Office, Credit Union or Caisse Populaire;

o) Doreen represents and warrants to Ian that during the time Doreen has owned the Property, she has not caused any building on the Property to be insulated with insulation containing ureaformaldehyde and that to the best of her knowledge no building on the property contains or has ever contained insulation that contains ureaformaldehyde. This warranty shall survive and not merge on the completion of this transaction.

2. The chattels to be included in the real property transaction contemplated by paragraph 1 above are set out in Schedule A. All other chattels are excluded from the purchase price (the "Excluded Chattels"). Excluded Chattels shall be removed by Doreen at her own expense at a mutually convenient date and time on agreement of the parties. Ian agrees not to be present in the premises while the excluded chattels are removed from the premises but reserves the right to appoint an agent or representative to be in attendance.


3. At closing, Ian shall provide a personal undertaking to pay all outstanding contractors' accounts for any work done on the Property since July 24, 2010.

4. Ian will deliver at closing an indemnity in favour of Doreen, in a form to be agreed by counsel, to indemnify Doreen for any possible claims that might be brought in the future against Doreen for work done to date and prior to closing.

5. At closing, Doreen shall deliver two acknowledgements that the costs orders of Justice Gorman dated January 10, 2012 in the amount of $1,500.00 and the costs order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dated July 20, 2012 in the amount of $9,917.99 are satisfied. Ian shall bear any cost of filing the acknowledgments with the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

6. At closing, Ian shall provide to Doreen an executed Consent to withdraw his Application pending under Section 174 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 bearing File No. SWT-29109-11, without costs.

7. At closing, Ian shall provide to Doreen an executed Consent to dismiss the action known as Wilkinson v. Wilkinson bearing Superior Court of Justice (Stratford) File no. [new action number] without costs. Ian shall bear the costs of the motion to dismiss the proceeding and, after closing, shall deliver a copy of the Order to Doreen as issued and entered with the court.

8. At closing, Ian and Doreen shall deliver mutual releases in a form to be agreed by counsel, with respect to the release of all past and present claims, one against the other, and Ian shall release all future claims against the Doreen's Estate and her Estate Trustee(s) and for any claim(s) relating to the Property.

9. Doreen acknowledges and agrees that she shall consent to any reasonable request made by Ian for an extension of time to close if the need for such a request arises for reasons beyond the control of Ian.

10. Ian acknowledges and agrees that if he fails to close the transactions contemplated by these Minutes of Settlement, these Minutes of Settlement can be used as evidence by Doreen in any subsequent proceeding and/or litigation as evidence that Ian is not in a financial position to purchase the Property.

11. Doreen acknowledges and agrees that if she intentionally breaches the terms of these Minutes of Settlement, Ian shall be entitled to bring a claim for specific enforcement of these Minutes of Settlement.

12. These Minutes of Settlement, including any Schedule attached to it, shall constitute the entire agreement between Ian and Doreen.

13. These Minutes of Settlement may be executed in counterparts and all such counterparts shall constitute one agreement binding on both parties hereto provided each party hereto has executed at least one counterpart.

14. The heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of Ian and Doreen are bound by the terms of these Minutes of Settlement.

Dated the 22nd day of August, 2012

___________________________ ____________________________
Witness Ian Wilkinson

___________________________ ____________________________
Witness Doreen Wilkinson Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Good afternoon: we have instructions to accept service of the Statement of Claim.

Yours truly,
Kathryn Ritsma

From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: August-01-12 12:20 AM
To: Kathryn M. Ritsma
Cc: martha@cooklaw.ca
Subject: RE: restrictions on renovations

To: Kathy Ritsma

Attached is a Statement of Claim that has been filed but is yet unserved.

Martha has not received any response to the latest offer to purchase and if there is a settlement I will not to officially serve this Claim but simply withdraw it.

Martha Cooke will represent me in any final negotiations regarding a settlement, if there is one, but will not be acting as my agent if such a settlement is not forthcoming. Therefore, any communications can be directed to her regarding finalizing settlement documents but otherwise correspondence should be sent to me directly.

Finally, you can advise your client that I have no intention of undertaking any repair or maintenance here. I have provided the estimates from Dirk Newberry in an effort to inform her of the condition of the premises and the cost involved. Neither of these items are hazzardous per se. This can not be said of the bricks in the two chimneys which need immediate evaluation. I believe that brick could come free in a storm and as such does represent a clear danger to anyone below. You have also been advised of the oil tank buried beneath the porch. This also must be dealt with forthwith.

From previous correspondence between you and Martha Cooke, I understood that your client had finally resolved to go ahead with the sale if I could arrange financing. It took me no small effort but I have once again an unconditional offer on the table and believe that my solution resolves this situation in the most favourable way for everyone involved.

If there are outstanding issues to resolve then please put them forward so they can be dealt with. I have filed my claim as a last resort and remain open to any reasonable solution. If none is forthcoming then I will have no choice but to stand up for my rights and those of my family, and force this issue to a full trial.


Thank you for your consideration in this matter.



Sincerely


Ian G. Wilkinson

This email was scanned by BitDefender. Dear Mr. Wilkinson:

We attach hereto:

(1) Notice of Motion;
(2) Affidavit of B. Lester sworn August 27, 2012,

both of which will be served upon you at your last known address, pursuant to the Rules.

Sincerely,


Kathryn M. Ritsma, Partner
Monteith Ritsma Phillips LLP
56 Albert Street, Box 846
Stratford, ON N5A 6W3
(519) 271-6770, Ext. 2238
Fax: (519) 271-9261 NOTICE OF MOTION (SUP. CRT. JUS. (ACTION)-TO THE COURT) Dye & Durham CFS (Litigation 6.0)
(Form 37A under the Rules)

Court file no. 12 2363

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

IAN GORDON WILKINSON

PLAINTIFF
and


DOREEN MARGARET WILKINSON

DEFENDANT

NOTICE OF MOTION

THE Defendant will make a motion to the court on Wednesday, September 5, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon after that time as the motion can be heard, at 1 Huron Street, Stratford, Ontario.

PROPOSED METHOD OF HEARING: The motion is to be heard orally.


THE MOTION IS FOR:
(a) An Order abridging the time for service of this Motion, if necessary;
(b) An Order pursuant to Rule 56.01(1) requiring the Plaintiff to pay all costs owing to the Defendant, Doreen Wilkinson, in this Action in the amount of $1,000.00 and in Application number 2263-11 in the amount of $11,417.99 (Justice Gorman’s Order of January 10, 2012, Court of Appeal decision dated July 26, 2012) forthwith, and staying this Action of the Plaintiff until such costs are paid in full;
(c) An Order requiring the Plaintiff to post appropriate security in this Action in the amount of $25,000.00 or in such other amount as this Honourable Court deems proper, to provide appropriate security to the Defendant if the Plaintiff is not successful in this action;
(d) An Order for costs of this Motion;
(e) Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE:
1. Rule 56.01(1);
2. Costs against the Plaintiff have accumulated in Superior Court of Justice (Stratford) File number 2263-11 and in this action totalling $12,417.99, and such costs remain unpaid.
3. The Defendant does not believe that the Plaintiff has the ability to pay the existing Orders for costs, nor any potential Orders for costs in this action, should the Plaintiff be unsuccessful in his Claim.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the motion: Affidavit of Brenda Lester sworn August 27, 2012

Date: August 27, 2012
Monteith Ritsma Phillips LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
56 Albert Street, Box 846
Stratford, Ontario N5A 6W3
Attention: Kathryn M. Ritsma

(519) 271 6770
Fax: (519) 271 9261

Solicitors for the Defendant



TO: IAN WILKINSON
iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
98 Douglas Street
Stratford, ON N5A 5P6


IAN GORDON WILKINSON and DOREEN MARGARET WILKINSON
PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S)

(Short title of proceeding) Court file no. 12 2363

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Proceeding commenced at Stratford, ON











NOTICE OF MOTION
(Form 37A under the Rules)





DYE & DURHAM CFS

Name, address, telephone and fax numbers of solicitor or party
(Law Society registration number of solicitor):
Monteith Ritsma Phillips LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
56 Albert Street, Box 846
Stratford, Ontario
N5A 6W3

Attention: Kathryn M. Ritsma
24547C
(519) 271 6770
Fax: (519) 271 9261

Solicitors for the Defendant STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM Dye & Durham CFS (Litigation 6.0)
(AGAINST PARTIES TO MAIN ACTION ONLY)
(Form 27A under the Rules)


Court file no. 12-2363

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

IAN GORDON WILKINSON
PLAINTIFF
and


DOREEN MARGARET WILKINSON

DEFENDANT

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

1. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 26 and 60 of the Statement of Claim.

2. The Defendant has no knowledge in respect of the allegations contained in paragraphs 12, 24, 27 through 32, 41, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the Statement of Claim and puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

3. The Defendant disputes and denies the allegations contained in the balance of the Statement of Claim and puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

4. The Defendant specifically denies the claims made by the Plaintiff in this action and further indicates that she intends to bring a Motion for security for costs as the Plaintiff owes her costs in the amount of $12,417.99 in connection with a previous Application commenced by her, being Court file number 2263-11 (Superior Court of Justice, Stratford), Court of Appeal proceeding heard July 20, 2012, which upheld the decision of Justice Gorman dated January 12, 2012, in Court file number 2263-11, and in relation to a Motion brought by the Plaintiff in this action heard in London, Ontario, by Justice Grace on August 14, 2012.

5. There is a history of litigation concerning this matter and there is a relevant history to the claims and allegations made by the Plaintiff in this action as set out in this Statement of Defence.

6. The Defendant states that she is the owner of a large home located at 98 Douglas Street, Stratford, purchased by the Defendant and her late husband when they moved to Stratford in 1969. The Defendant and her late husband are the parents of seven children. The eldest died in October, 2009. The Defendant’s husband died of a heart attack in February, 2007. The Defendant turned 89 on June 23, 2012.

7. The Defendant states that she resided at 98 Douglas Street in Stratford until June, 2009, when she suffered a fall at the home and was hospitalized. Following recuperation in the hospital, the Defendant had respite care at Anne Hathaway Residence in Stratford. The Defendant paid rent there for six months. Toward the end of the six months, the Defendant determined that her difficulty with stairs and with mobility would prevent her from returning to live at 98 Douglas Street so she purchased a unit in Woodland Towers (a senior citizens’ apartment building attached to a nursing home) by registering a line of credit of approximately $250,000.00 against her property at 98 Douglas Street, Stratford.

8. At the time the Defendant moved to Woodland Towers, two of her adult children, Ian Wilkinson, 51 years of age, and Brian Wilkinson, 56 years of age, were living at her home with her permission. The Defendant states that she agreed that Ian and Brian could live in her home until they finished their law degrees. The Defendant has always paid the taxes, utilities and all expenses associated with 98 Douglas Street.

9. The Defendant states that throughout her joint ownership of 98 Douglas Street with her late husband, Geoff, and since his death, various children and grandchildren lived at 98 Douglas Street for extended periods of time. For the most part, the children and grandchildren did not pay rent with the exception of a period from December, 2009 until June, 2010, when the Defendant’s son, Stephen Wilkinson, resided at 98 Douglas Street and paid rent of $800.00 per month.

10. The Defendant statues, and the fact is, that the annual taxes for 98 Douglas Street are $5,600.00 and that the interest being incurred on the line of credit to purchase her residence at Woodland Towers is over $10,000.00 per annum. In addition, the Defendant has the cost of home insurance, utilities, maintenance and general upkeep for the premises.

11. The Defendant states that in the spring of 2011 she wanted to regain possession of her home at 98 Douglas Street, Stratford and arrange for it to be sold as she was depleting her assets by financing two households and because the Plaintiff had completed his law degree and it was time for him to find his own residence.

12. The Defendant states that for several years she assisted the Plaintiff by gifting him money so that he could complete his Bachelor of Laws degree. Further, the Defendant states that the Plaintiff did work in Stratford as a paralegal over a number of years, prior to working on his Bachelor of Laws degree, and during that time resided at her home at 98 Douglas Street and paid no rent. Also, the Defendant and her late husband loaned several thousand dollars to the Plaintiff to assist him in his paralegal business prior to obtaining his Bachelor of Laws degree.

13. The Defendant states that her sources of income are a Survivor’s Pension from C.P.P., and a Survivor’s Pension from her late husband’s teaching position from which he retired in the early 1980s.

14. The Defendant states that she retained counsel to regain possession of her house and first attempted to do so by way of letter, then Trespass Notice served through counsel, and finally she had to commence an Application for a Writ of Possession in Superior Court of Justice (Stratford) Application number 2263-11 on October 5, 2011.

15. The Applicant for a Writ of Possession was heard on January 10, 2012, and Justice Gorman ordered a Writ of Possession effective immediately. This Order was appealed by the Plaintiff and heard by the Court of Appeal on July 20, 2012. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal of Justice Gorman’s Order and the Defendant regained possession of her premises on Wednesday, August 15, 2012.

16. The day before the Defendant regained possession of her home, the Plaintiff in this action brought an emergency Motion in London, Ontario, requesting that the Writ of Possession originally ordered by Justice Gorman on January 10, 2012, be set aside and this emergency Motion was dismissed.

17. The Defendant disputes the Plaintiff’s claim that he is entitled to compensation for any maintenance, upkeep or upgrading of her property at 98 Douglas Street. The Defendant disputes that the Plaintiff has any legal basis for a constructive trust claim against her and she disputes that he has any claim that entitles him to request specific performance of the conveyance of the Defendant’s property at 98 Douglas Street to him.

18. The Defendant states that no monies have ever been paid by Ian Wilkinson toward the upkeep and maintenance of her property and states that she and her late husband were always responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the home and for any cost of renovations.

19. The Defendant states that her late husband looked after most of the maintenance of the home until at least 2004. The Defendant states that the onset of her late husband’s Alzheimer’s Disease was in approximately 2003/2004. In July, 2006, the Defendant’s husband suffered a heart attack and he was then moved to the Alzheimer’s facility at Spruce Lodge. In February, 2007, the Defendant’s husband suffered a final heart attack and passed away.

20. The Defendant states that in 2004 her husband was no longer able to do the outside work at the home. The Defendant further states that her son, Brian Wilkinson, was responsible for grass cutting and snow shovelling from about 1990 and no money was paid to Brian by the Defendant and her late husband. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff’s primary responsibility while he resided at 98 Douglas Street was to take out the garbage and put salt in the water softener. The Defendant states that she had cleaners come to the home to clean and a gardener to look after the front gardens.

21. The Defendant states that the general chores which the Plaintiff undertook were done as part of a family commitment and were never to be compensated for in any way.

22. The Defendant states that she had heart bypass surgery in 2001 but after a six-week recovery time she was able to drive again, buy groceries and cook meals.

23. The Defendant states that a fire did gut the attic of the home in 2001 but the renovations were paid for by insurance and completed by outside contractors. The Defendant states that her late husband was healthy at that time and oversaw those repairs.

24. The Defendant states that some renovations were done to the basement of the home in 2005 and 2006. These renovations were paid for by way of a line of credit of $65,000.00 which the Defendant borrowed from the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the only contribution made by the Plaintiff was to check on the work being done by the contractors from time to time.

25. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff did some painting of outside trim in approximately 2005/2006 and she paid him approximately $4,000.00 for such work.

26. The Defendant states that neither she nor her late husband made any promise to sell 98 Douglas Street to the Plaintiff at any time. The Defendant agrees that the Plaintiff may have been interested in purchasing the home and made statements to that effect from time to time to her and to the family, but no promises were made to him.

27. The Defendant states that at no time did she give the Plaintiff authority to rent any space in her home or to have anyone else reside there. Specifically, she directed through counsel in April, 2011, that he not do so, as she became aware that the Plaintiff was renting space in her home without her authority.

28. The Defendant states that in her Application 2263-11 in Superior Court of Justice, Stratford, various negotiations took place to look at the possibility of the Plaintiff purchasing the home at 98 Douglas Street from the Defendant. These negotiations, however, were not concluded and the Defendant reached the decision that she did not want to sell the premises at 98 Douglas Street to the Plaintiff on any terms whatsoever as she felt that he would eventually not be able to afford the house and would lose it, he would not allow other family members to visit there, and based on the conduct of the Plaintiff toward Defendant in her Application 2263-11.

29. The Defendant denies that there is any basis whatsoever for a Certificate of Pending Litigation and that the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation of any amount is unjustified and inappropriate.

30. The Defendant further states that in Application 2263-11 Justice Tausendfreund, in his Stay Order of January 24, 2012, ordered that Ian Wilkinson pay the Defendant rent of $1,400.00 per month and $500.00 per month toward utilities commencing February 1, 2012. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff is in arrears of this Order to the extent of $2,850.00.

31. The Defendant further states that during the time the Plaintiff was in possession of 98 Douglas Street, sometime after she left the premises in July, 2009, he has altered the interior of her home by constructing “half closets” in various bedrooms, painting and other inappropriate alterations. The Defendant states that such alterations of 98 Douglas Street have decreased the value of her property and will have to be corrected before her property can be sold.

32. The Defendant requests that the Plaintiff’s action be dismissed with costs in favour of the Defendant.

Date: August 27, 2012
Monteith Ritsma Phillips LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
56 Albert Street, Box 846
Stratford, ON N5A 6W3
Attention: Kathryn M. Ritsma
(519) 271-6770
Fax: (519) 271-9261

Solicitors for the Defendant.

TO: IAN WILKINSON
iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
98 Douglas Street
Stratford, ON N5A 5P6
Plaintiff.



IAN GORDON WILKINSON and DOREEN MARGARET WILKINSON
PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
(Short title of proceeding) Court file no. 12-2363

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Proceeding commenced at Stratford, ON











STATEMENT OF DEFENCE






DYE & DURHAM CFS

Monteith Ritsma Phillips LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
56 Albert Street, Box 846
Stratford, Ontario
N5A 6W3

Attention: Kathryn M. Ritsma
24547C
(519) 271-6770
Fax: (519) 271-9261

Solicitors for the Defendant 12/9/12

Mr. Wilkinson:
I have your email request regarding the adjournment. A number of points require clarification:
1. I assume that the Motion you have brought returnable Sept. 5th, 2012 is also being adjourned to the same date as our motion?
2. Are you available the next Motions court date which is Sept 18, 2012?
3. If you are available that date-Sept 18th can you agree to have your materials served by Sept. 11th at 4:30 pm so that I have an opportunity to consider the responding materials and prepare any necessary responding affidavits which are required to be served and filed by Friday Sept 14th at 2:00 pm for a motion returnable on Sept. 18th.
4. Do you have a new municipal address which you can provide to the Court and to us?
I have no problem with an adjournment in principle but we need to incorporate these other concerns in setting some terms of the adjournment.

Yours truly,

Kathryn Ritsma, Partner > > Martha Cook
> > MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
> > 10 Downie Street, Suite 302
> > Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
> > Tel: (519) 275-3888
> > Fax: (519) 275-3885
> > martha@cooklaw.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Wilkinson
> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 4:29 PM
> > To: Martha Cook
> >
> > Hmmm ...
> > brother Brian is coming over and is willing to do another affidavit to counteract the one he put in before and to help deal with Wendy's interference ect ...
> >
> > is it possible to get his affidavit commissioned by you on the weekend so I can put it in the file for Monday ?
> >
> > just a thought ..
> >
> > as always ... thanks > > From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> > To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> > Subject: DRAFT Order re stay
> > Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:01:52 +0000
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am amended your draft, see attached.
> >
> >
> >
> > Looking at your draft order, I wanted to let you know that you MUST put all of your evidence under an affidavit and in proper court format - you can't file a document brief: see Rule 37 & 39 of the Ontario Court Rules (the Rules are all online).
> >
> >
> >
> > I am sending you an index for the motion record along with cover page, all in proper format. Do you want me to bring your motion record from the stay application by?
> >
> >
> >
> > Martha Cook > > From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> > To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> > Subject: RE: RE: DRAFT Order re stay
> > Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:18:55 +0000
> >
> > Yup, I am on my cellphone at 519-301-7758. Text or call. I am picking my son up from camp up near Tobermory tomorrow but will be back in the afternoon and can commission something on Saturday or Sunday.
> >
> > Have you filed your notice of motion yet? If not, make sure you file it 1st thing on Monday in Stratford even if the motion record proper is not ready- you can file the proper motion record later. You are still going to need to argue the RJR-McDonald case and persuade the judge that you meet all three aspects of the legal test on a motion for a stay - this is kind of set out in the early stay materials (1. Serious issue to be tried; 2. Uncompensable prejudice if order not made; and 3. Balance of convenience). Rompspen v. 151, attached, has a nice treatment of what is considered at this stage.
> >
> > An affidavit from Brian could assist in further demonstrating potential prejudice to you should the writ proceed.
> >
> > Your biggest hurdle is the serious issue and you will need to explain the serious issue based on the statement of claim, affidavit evidence and the law of resulting and/or constructive trust (see Memo, attached). Even the Court of Appeal struggled with (read: rejected) my submission that your claim for unjust enrichment can give rise to a constructive trust over a portion of the house equal to the unjust enrichment. I am sending you the key cases to demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be tried. You will want to have these cases with you along with your Mum's earlier affidavits showing that she does not occupy the home and that she intends to list and sell. As you learned in front of Tausenfreund, J., lack of prejudice to your mother is almost certain to win the day on such an urgent issue.
> >
> > > From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:26 PM
> To: Martha Cook
> Subject: RE: DRAFT Order re stay
>
>
>
> Ummm ... I thought I was supposed to be in London court first thing on Monday morning?
>
>
> > From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: DRAFT Order re stay
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:32:54 +0000
>
>
>
> I am just trying to make sure that you are properly positioned to get the short term order pending have the motion heard.
>
>
>
> As we discussed, you are asking for a very short term order to be put in place just until the motion for interim possession can be properly determined on a full record. I do not want to see you before a Judge in London without having filed and served the Notice of Motion before appearing in court because you run into the same problem again..you need to have put the issue of interim possession in front of the court by filing the motion and paying the $127 filing fee so as to be reasonable in your request for a stay to have that motion heard and decided. If the Notice of Motion is not yet served and filed, the whole things becomes too vague to be compelling to a Judge.
>
>
>
> If you have the Notice of Motion ready, I can have it served and filed on Monday morning while you travel to London. Or, you can go to London on Tuesday after getting the Motion finalized so that you can show the full record to the Judge.
> >
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Wilkinson
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:54 PM
> To: Martha Cook
>
> I see ... thank you for the explaination ... its just that the London trial co-ordinator said I would have to pay them for the notice of motion. How would the London court know I file and paid for it ?
>
> I believe I will have the Notice done by tonite.
> I can serve my mom on Sunday I suppose so that it just has to be filed. But I would need an affidavit of service as well.
> From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: DRAFT Order re stay
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:55:57 +0000
Here are Gorman’s Endorsment, Reasons and Order as well as Tausenfreunds’ Order (not that it is relevant) and the Court of Appeal Order. If you get the stay, you can use the Certificate of Stay in the form attached and file it at the court asap upon your return to Stratford so that the Sheriff has notice. Is there anything else you need from your file for tomorrow?

Not sure why the Judge wanted you to serve the ex parte motion – although it probably doesn’t matter given that you will be required to deliver a copy of your motion record and any other materials to Ritsma in any event. Who is the Judge?

I think the only way you can realistically deal with Anneli’s situation is simply to speak on her behalf. The only realistic grounds for her to stay the eviction is on the basis of being a tenant and the pending LTB proceeding, and I believe you already address that issue in your material.

I am sorry if I seem a little distant – I am just swamped with other matters and (sadly) am still in the office as I write this.

I have not had the courtesy of any reply from Ritsma on the offer to settle. This is probably not the best timing, but I was speaking to an environmental consultant on another matter and he echoes my advice about walking away given the unascertainable environmental liability. He did offer to give me contact information for a reputable contractor who can do the removal work locally if you get the house.

I am in a meeting from 8:15-9:00am and have a settlement conference tomorrow from 10-12 but will be otherwise available to speak to you.


Martha Cook From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 3:13 PM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: RE: DRAFT Order re stay

Hi Martha

The London judge is making me go back tomorrow at 2:15 ... I didn't have Gorman's endorsement nor reasons ( I forgot to add that to the file when I was at the Stratford court.
Also Ididn't serve Ritsma the Exparte Motion ... (but I thought Exparte meant without notice?)

Anyway I have to do that and will do that today.


I am really worried about Anneli and her emotional state ...

I think she should do her own motion on Wednesday and get her own lawyer as I don't think I can protect her from all this and she has rights independent of mine ...

any comment or suggestion about this ...

I am at home and can call if that is better ...

thanks

Ian From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: DRAFT Order re stay
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:01:52 +0000



Ian,



I am amended your draft, see attached.



Looking at your draft order, I wanted to let you know that you MUST put all of your evidence under an affidavit and in proper court format - you can't file a document brief: see Rule 37 & 39 of the Ontario Court Rules (the Rules are all online).



I am sending you an index for the motion record along with cover page, all in proper format. Do you want me to bring your motion record from the stay application by?



Martha Cook

MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

10 Downie Street, Suite 302

Stratford, ON N5A 7K4

Tel: (519) 275-3888

Fax: (519) 275-3885

martha@cooklaw.ca <mailto:martha@cooklaw.ca> On 2012-08-13, at 10:23 PM, "Ian Wilkinson" <iangwilkinson@hotmail.com> wrote:
I got them from the court today.
No I don't think I need anything except a prayer.

Judge Duncan Grace - he said he would have questions about 'it seems that you are trying to do through the back door what you could not through the front' ... (i already had my attempt ... but I made the point that it is not an action but I don't know the rule in the Rules of CP to justify my claim) ...

I was considering a hail mary attempt for her ... I was going to do up a Motion for her as 'Occupant' since she is that and she should have her right decided separately from mine. She will do an affidavit that she rented from me as my mother's agent and she paid rent to my mom ... (they cashed 2 cheques from her for July with the memo 'rent' for $1900.00. She has a L&T application filed but no date yet. I will support her motion and say I believed I had authority to rent to her. Any comments on that strategy.

I have 4 cases on Wednesday that ... one is an appeal to over turn a default order for eviction ... maybe I should recuse myself ... the irony

no need to apologise

thanks for the info on the UST ...

I appreciate your being there for us...

On a personal note I am feeling very distraught myself. Aside from the fact that I am facing losing my rights without even being heard ... that shakes my belief in the law to the core. Especially when I know my mother doesnt' want to do this.
I still don't believe Ritsma has any authority to act on this as I believe she only has a PofA document and not a separate retainer agreement. Can I challenge that and ask the judge to make her prove her authorization ?

Worst of all is the feeling that I dragged Anneli and the kids into this and I really don't know if I am gonna be able to even look her in the eyes if this goes down this way. I will have failed them and they are innocents ... I don't know how to get over that. On 2012-08-12, at 12:24 PM, "Ian Wilkinson" <iangwilkinson@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Martha ...

Ok I got everything ready except I don't have Gorman's Order or endorsement which I will get from the court and add to the file.

My plan is go to court ... swear my affidavit for the Stratford motion then serve Ritsma at 9 am tomorrow then file the Motion in Stratford and then take it to London. The trial co-ordinator knows I am coming and said that there is a judge with a hearing expected to take a couple or three hours. I will call tomorrow and tell them I am on my way.

Brian has not done an affidavit but I have mine to commission if you are coming around today (but no real need if it doesn't work out). Anneli works from 4 to 9 and I may give her a ride.

Either way ... I think I am good to go with your help ... thanks.


Ian From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 4:31 PM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: meeting

Hi Martha

I would like to meet with you when you have time just to discuss a couple of things. Not like it has to be today ... as we are still very disorganized but it really should be soon. Maybe meet outside the office for a change ... just a more informal environment.

thanks

Ian
From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 5:59 PM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: RE: meeting

Hi

and OMG the family still thinks that my offer is not real ... that I have to go through more hoops or something ...
can I confirm with you that all my mom has to do is sign the dam document?

Been really busy myself so tomorrow or Friday or even the w.e. is good I guess.

Any place that we can have a drink and sit in a booth so our conversation is at least a bit private.

thanks

Ian From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: meeting
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:10:30 +0000
Ian,

The current offer has expired and will have to be novated – this will keep happening because of the closing date issue. Here is a draft that you can use. You need to insert the new action number in paragraph 7. If you need your signature witnessed, you are welcome to stop by the office today.

How about Friday afternoon for a drink/meeting? November 2012 December 2012 Ian G. Wilkinson
14 Mowat Street,
Stratford, ON
N5A 2B7

Law Society of Upper Canada
Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen Street West
Toronto, On, M5H 2N6


Attention: Complaints Services

Dear Sir
Complaint about Kathy Ritsma

This complaint is in regards to my mother’s lawyer and Power of Attorney Kathy Ritsma (KR). I have serious issues with the ethical propriety in which KR acted, both as lawyer and as active power of attorney. My second and perhaps more fundamental complaint is that KR acted in both official capacities simultaneously. As direct result of this there has been unnecessary and extensive litigation which has cost tens of thousands on both sides, effectively destroyed family relationships, caused dislocation, upheaval and psychological damage to any number people including children and yet left her client, my mother, worse off than when KR became involved.

A short synopsis may be found in my Statement of Claim as attached but the specifics of my complaint against KR are laid out herein.

I lived in the family home in Stratford from approximately 1990 to August 15, 2012. I cared for my mother and father and the family home for many of those years. There is, and always has been significant ‘disagreement’ between the siblings particularly when it came to the care of my mother and father.

My mother has never been able to make significant decisions on her own and has relied on her family to do so. She is very ‘conflict adverse’ and so often goes along with whatever she believes the person she is presently talking to decides.

In 2009 she suffered a fall and serious head trauma from which she has never fully recovered. She now resides in an assisted living apartment with my sister Wendy. I was living with her at the family home at the time of her fall and have had my access to her limited by siblings ever since. Since April 2011 my access has been cut off entirely with the knowledge and indeed the assistance of KR.

Around this time, in spring 2011, Kathy Ritsma (KR) notified me by letter that she was my mother’s power of attorney. I asked several times for authorization of this fact in order to ascertain the extent of her authority but have to this day not received anything. In circumstances where there is such clear and well known family conflict and the mental health of the principal is in question there is a clear fudiciary duty to act without the appearance of impropriety.

The implication here is that KR effectively cut off any interaction I could have with my mother, her client and principal in the power of attorney, and thereby makes it so I have no one with which I can discuss, mediate or negotiate with except for KR. The considerations of a person acting under a power of attorney are clearly different than that of a lawyer acting under a legal retainer. In this case it was KR that not only decide whether to initiate various legal actions but also how and what legal actions with which to proceed.

In the first letter I was being told by KR that I had to vacate the premises because the property needed to be sold. First this is not a valid reason for requiring vacant possession and KR must know this. KR had already had meetings with the rest of my family before and so I was left out of the discussions with my mother`s power of attorney simply because I was living at the premises at the time. It was well known that I had an equitable claim to the property or at least an ongoing tenancy. She assumed an adversarial position with me from the start and yet essentially asked me to lay out the details of my claim. The `elephant in the room` was that she would in fact be my mother`s lawyer if there could be no compromise settlement.

KR continued email correspondence as the power of attorney and herself decided initiated legal action. It was KR that decided to do so by way of an application to the Superior Court. It was KR that decided to proceed with a writ of possession without my mother`s informed consent. I know this because on two occasions I have been able to see my mother for very short periods and even in that little time it is evident that she is not competent in that she understands the implications of the ecisions that were being made in her name. On one occasion when asked by me she indicated that she did not even know that I had an offer on the table and that there was an eviction scheduled for the following week. I have been told by my brother ‘you know how it goes … when something happens Ritsma comes over and everybody says their bit … mom doesn’t say much if anything and then Ritsma goes away and does whatever she thinks is right’.

On three occasions I was lead to believe that that there would be settlement on the basis of an offer to purchase the premises by me. On one occasion my lawyer told me that there was an agreement with KR on all the terms and I believed that since KR was power of attorney then it was a solid agreement. On that occasion KR reverted back to her status as lawyer and denied that there was a binding agreement. This is more than slightly disingenuous and particularly so when it is an issue between family members.

I have tried many times to arrange a settlement conference with KR and my mother but these requests have been simply ignored. I was told by a family member that their (my siblings) strategy was simple to keep my mother away from me and to make it so that the merits of my case are never heard. This is congruent with the tactics that KR has implemented. It appears to more than just me that KR has not coincidentally assisted my siblings in this.

I lived with my mother for twenty years as an adult and I know without doubt that she would not have approved of some of the actions that have taken place. Indeed KR has put forward statements in my mother‘s name that she herself would and will eventually say are untrue. KR propagated an eviction that was entirely unnecessary that put me, my common-law wife and two underage children out of our residence on very short notice. This result cannot be what she wanted and so either she must not have understood the implications of the decisions that KR asked her to make or KR did not explain the implications of the decisions or did not inform her of decisions that KR herself made.

Clearly though, the strategy, tactics and seeming callous disregard for the ethical boundaries set by the legal profession have resulted in prolonged, unnecessary and complex litigation. KR, as one small example, filed for a writ in January 2012 even though she had been notified by my lawyer that we had intended and had in fact drafted documents in order to file an appeal. Professional courtesy and the Statutory Powers Procedures Act combine to imply that it is inappropriate to prosecute an eviction with knowledge that the other side is in the process of filing an appeal.

It must be remembered that I too have an interest in my mothers wellbeing. Indeed, I have very reluctantly drafted and will be drafting documents toward litigation against family for various torts in relation to this matter when it was and is seemingly unnecessary ‘but for‘ the obvious lack of a litigation guardian.

I should not have had to sue my mother in order to have a reasonable resolution to this. I have repeatedly asked for mediation, negotiation and settlement but have been backed into this position specifically because the active power of attorney is one and the same person as the lawyer. It is impossible for one person to where two hats at the same time.

As power of attorney KR has a fiduciary duty to act in her principals best interests. The practical result of the actions of the KR as power of attorney has been to spark litigation amongst family by which she is counsel. The only person to have benefited by this litigation is KR and her firm. How can KR fulfill her fiduciary duty when she is profiting from the decisions that she makes.

There must be reasons based on ethics for the requirement of a litigation guardian. Surely it is to protect the rights and interest of all the parties involved. When there is prima facie evidence that a litigation guardian may be needed the power of attorney, especially if that power of attorney is a lawyer, has an obligation to make sure the proper procedures are followed.

I will be drafting a letter to the Official Guardian similar to this one. I am seemingly unable to protect her interests in this situation without some assistance and I will look where I can for that assistance. If I am correct in my conclusions that the actions of KR in acting as both Power of Attorney and lawyer then this needs to be some independent verification of this and it needs to be rectified. If I am wrong then I would like an explanation as to why.

This has seriously and adversely affected not only my rights and interests and those of innocent third parties but also the rights and interest of my mother as well. There are many people looking at this situation in dismay and so it is the justice system itself has an interest in at least the appearance of propriety.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,



6
Ian G. Wilkinson B.A., LL.B. From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:34 PM
To: Jason Breau
Subject: RE: Mortgage Docs

well I guess ... what ever Gerry would need to understand the deal and make it happen ...


________________________________________
From: jason.breau@migroup.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Mortgage Docs
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:32:09 -0400
Hi Ian
Are you referring to the one that you signed?

Jason Breau
Mortgage Intelligence
FSCO Lic M08001270
Phone 519 886-7887
Fax 519 886-6663
Toll Free 1 888 703-6290
www.mortgageintelligence.ca/JasonBreau


From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:29 PM
To: Jason Breau
Subject: Mortgage Docs

Hi Jason ...

Can you send me a copy of the mortgage commitments so i can go over it with the real estate lawyer Gerry Culliton. Between me and you he say he doesn't buy the statement from my mom's lawyer K. Ritsma that she doesn't know what the 'escrow' part of the deal means and so he wants to look everything over. So as it sits ... we 'might' be moving forward ... but then again we might not ...

If you have not already don't send anything to her for now ... I will review it all with Gerry.

hope that is not too much of a hassle


thanks


Ian From: My Le Van [mailto:MVan@lsuc.on.ca] On Behalf Of comail
Sent: December-14-12 10:41 AM
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Mr. Wilkinson:
Thank you for your correspondence. Your complaint or inquiry has been assigned file number 2012-114867.
Please see the attached acknowledgement letter and information sheet. Please provide your full name, address and telephone number for our records, if you have not already done so.
Sincerely Yours,
Complaints Services
Client Service Centre
The Law Society of Upper Canada
(See attached file: 2012-114867.pdf)(See attached file: Information Sheet.pdf)


This communication is intended for use by the individual(s) to whom it is specifically addressed and should not be read by, or delivered to, any other person. Such communication may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the communication. Thank you for your cooperation. Mr. Wilkinson:

Further to your email to Katie DeBlock Boersma of today's date. Please see attached our original written submissions that were couriered to you on September 28th, 2012 As well as our Reply.

Yours very truly,

Jen Vosper
Legal Assistant to Katie DeBlock Boersma

Monteith Ritsma Phillips LLP
56 Albert Street
P.O. Box 846
Stratford, ON N5A 6W3

Tel: 519-271-6770 ext. 2237
Fax: 519-271-9261
jvosper@stratfordlawyers.com
www.stratfordlawyers.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Xerox
Sent: October-26-12 9:49 AM
To: Jen Vosper
Subject: Scan from a Xerox WorkCentre

Please open the attached document. It was scanned and sent to you using a Xerox WorkCentre.

Attachment File Type: PDF Motion in Stratford Court - Security of Costs halts Ian's claim

From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: September-18-12 4:43 PM
To: martha@cooklaw.ca
Subject: RE: Wilkinson, Ian - Eviction/Tenancy Matters

Hi Martha

thanks for the reply.

yes I believe that may be dismissed because I am no longer a tenant but still the argument goes that I was when I applied.

I have thought about the process serving and think it really could be good .. just I have been working on my Motion for Oct 2, 2012 and have been overwhelmed with it because I am asking for an Appointment of Litigation Guardian, or alternately a Medical Exam or alternately a Examination of the Defendant, ... and ... CPI, Inspection of Property, Recovery of Personal Property seized during the eviction (including my law books, supplies, some casework and even evidence from this file, and finally Xexam of non-parties ...

dam I feel like I must be in law school

I appreciate the use of the office and hope to take you up on that ... but not much biz right now because I believe they cut my phone and I just got it redirected last week.

Are we moving to a deal? How the hell can I actually know that the way the other side has been? I met with Ritsma at the law library and presented her with another off of $400k since I got the second mortgage a week before. She said 'I don't understand this 'escrow bit' and I can't explain it to my client if I don't understand it.' I said I thought it had to do with this deal being a family transfer as opposed to a straight purchase so I said I would authorize Gerry to explain it. Just talked to Gerry now and she said he doesn't buy it that she knows what it is. Sooooo ... I am getting the mortgage docs from Jason and gonnna go over it wiht Gerry so that he knows and I know what it means.

I have a trial time on Quick books so I can do my own research now as well ...

If you need so serving done I can arrange to get it done just let me know and I will come and pick up the file .. I still have time to do something like that ...


thanks

Ian




> From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> Subject: FW: Wilkinson, Ian - Eviction/Tenancy Matters
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:19:21 +0000
>
> Ian,
> Just a quick reminder about the LTB matter we had in our calendar for September 21.
> I want to follow up on our process server discussion but I am swamped right now. I will follow up with you as soon as I can but do keep in mind that you are welcome to use our facilities for client meetings.
> Gerry Culliton received a signed authorization and direction for a transfer of the real estate file to Ritsma. Are you guys moving toward a deal??
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jody Swan
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:10 PM
> To: Martha Cook
> Subject: Re: Wilkinson, Ian - Eviction/Tenancy Matters
>
> Should we follow up with Ian on the LTB Hearing scheduled for Friday, September 21st?
>
> Jody
>
>
> From: Kathryn M. Ritsma [mailto:ritsma@stratfordlawyers.com]
Sent: September-12-12 11:22 AM
To: Ian Wilkinson
Cc: Brenda Lester
Subject: RE: Wilkinson ats Wilkinson

Mr. Wilkinson: I have your email from Monday Sept. 10th, 2012. The reason that your Motion and our Motion were adjourned was to allow you time to prepare materials to our Motion. It had nothing to do with any Settlement offers or timing of any Offers or responses. I would have preferred to adjourn the motions until Sept 18th but you indicated in our discussions in the Law Library that you would prefer Oct. 2nd, 2012 so that you would have time to serve the materials by Sept 24th as per the agreed term of adjournment. Do not delay in preparing your responding materials waiting on any response from me relating to Settlement offers or any other issue.

I cannot give you a time frame to respond to Offers. As I indicated to you I wanted to see a copy of your mortgage instructions that you state are in the hands of Mr. Culliton. I wrote to him last week requesting the instructions and am awaiting receipt of these. You have provided a list of items that you wish at some point to have from your mother’s home and I will review that list with my client and the other members of the family.
Yours truly,
Kathryn Ritsma From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: September-10-12 4:59 PM
To: Kathryn M. Ritsma
Subject: RE: Wilkinson ats Wilkinson

Ms. Ritsma

Further to our discussion at the Motion on September 5, 20132, we have made made a list of chattel that has been withheld from us by Stephen Wilkinson and Wendy Haynes who I can only assume were acting as your client's agents in this matter. I consider this act to be one of outright theft as while they may claim colour of right to some of these items this is not the case for many items. We were supposed to be allowed 'reasonable access' within 72 hours of the eviction and we were outright denied entry from the start. As such there are going to be numerous items of ours on this list that will not be on this list specifically because we don't know everything that remained on the premises.

Items unlawfully in your client's possession
- black wire trelis 4'x5'
- xbox 360 with controllers and games
- kitchen pots, pan, food containers and various other kitchen items
- Christmas and other decorations
- queen size box spring
- unbrella stand
- pool and related items
- clothes for kids and two adults
- kids sleds
- window blinds
- living room chairs, couches and various items
- standing closets and wardrobes
- bar bells and exercise machines
- electronic equipment including cameras, stereo and miscellaneous cords and adapters
- tools and building supplies, including painting supplies
- car supplies and parts
- trailer & garden equipment
- house decorations
- case notes for this case for which you are lawyer/power of attorney
- fooseball table,
- wall fountain
- law and other books
- law office supplies
- computer and various accessories
- active legal files, stored 'dead' files


Also, I have not received any response to the Offer to Settle that I gave to you on that day. On more than one occasion you have given me responses to my offers and other inquiries that have not been timely or not any response at all. I understand that it takes times to schedule and meet with your client and that such meetings are difficult and slow. However, in the past I have not pressed for responses and even delayed preparing legal documents because of this to my detriment.

In this light I reiterate that a major part of the request for an adjournment of the Motion was to give you time to consult with your client so I do not waste the court's time and my own by preparing and filing documents unnecessarily. Further to the goal of efficiency of court time, and assuming no settlement, I request you provide the addresses for service of Steve Wilkinson, Wendy Haynes, Trevor Wilkinson so that they may be examined as per the rules.

More importantly, you should know that I intend to make issue of the fact that I am, and have been unable to have any discussions nor direct communications with you client, my mother. This is ethically problematic and is itself a large part of the reason that this issue has been unduely protracted. As such, I am formally requesting that you arrange a meeting between the parties so that all of the outstanding issues can be fully aired so as to make absolutely sure settlement is not possible before further lengthy, complicated and potentially psychologically painful litigation results.

Now I speak to you as my mother's Power of Attorney as that is how you introduced yourself to me. As such, my understanding of the law is that you have a fiduciary duty to act in her best interests. I make this point because well before litigation began I made the point that the plan to sell the house to me , in fact, was in her best interests and repeatedly asked for someone to come up with a 'better plan'. No other plan at all had nor has to this day been put forward so I can only conclude there is not one. I believe you have an obligation as her power of attorney to support the best what is in her best interest and as her son this has always been an important consideration to me. It would be in her interest to have my support as much as that of my siblings if there is an alternate 'better plan' for her then put it to me so there is at least a chance that I may support it. Surely this could have an effect on litigation.

Now and since litigation began, I have made a formal offers to purchase in October 2011, in June 2012 and on September 5, 2012 that I again believe is in my mother's best interests. I have not received a counter offer nor even a response to either of the last two. Lack of clear and timely communication is again something that has driven this to litigation.

So, time requires a response to my offer to settle or for an informal settlement meeting asap. If you do not have instructions now then how much time do you need to obtain instructions?

Please reply with haste as delay will reduce the options available for both parties.

Thank you.


Ian G. Wilkinson From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: August-17-12 1:47 PM
To: blester@stratfordlawyers.com
Subject: RE: Wilkinson ats Wilkinson File 12-2363
Importance: High

hello

I have had some discussion with my brother Steve and it seems from what was said that my last offer was either misunderstood or not communicated in its entirety. In effect he suggested that I clarify so that my proposal can be put to my mom again in context.

The first point is about the chattels. I had asked my lawyer to convey that while I had put up a list of chattels (some which I would have paid extra for and some that would have been included in the purchase price) ... it was not meant to be seen as a 'condition'. I understand now that it was seen as just that. To clarify chattels have NEVER been an issue and is not an issue now either. In other words ... never mind about that chattels as it seems to have just muddied the waters.

Second is ... essentially my financing limits me to $380,000.00. However, I am able to increase that to the $400,000.00 originally contemplated with alternate capital sources but only once there is a deal or at least a 'tenative agreement' a tenative agreement. If there is still some speculation that the sale price should be more then I am still willing to discuss that.

Further, in order to make this offer more attractive I am also willing to take on the financial obligation that my mother has made to Brian which I understand is still in the range of $20,000.00. I had been willing to do this before and had said so informally but now want it clearly on the table.

If this is still not enough then I might suggest a transfer on those terms and a third party arbitor to determine the difference that should be made up. This give my mother the core amount of money she wants and needs right away and reduces the amount in dispute to a much smaller number.

I have $380,000.00 CONFIRMED financing ready to go ... Gerry Culliton is waiting to draft the doc if you need confirmation of that fact as it seems some people in my family do not understand a 'formal' offer to purchase means the money is ready and waiting. Please confirm this with Martha Cook if you must.

I don't believe that this offer was ever fully explained in the past and still believe it is the best for my mom as she would get the bulk of the money now and the remainder thereafter.

The only other way out of litigation for us all is for you to make a counter-offer relating to my equitable claim.

I await your reply ...

Thank you

Ian G. Wilkinson
________________________________________
From: blester@stratfordlawyers.com
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: Wilkinson ats Wilkinson File 12-2363
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:08:06 +0000
Dear Mr. Wilkinson:

Please find attached the draft Order made by Justice Grace on August 14, 2012, for your review. If satisfactory, would you kindly endorse the draft Order with your approval as to form and content and return it to our office. We will ensure that you receive a copy of the Order as issued and entered by the Court.

We also attach an Affidavit in response to your Motion returnable on September 5, 2012, to which we have attached the Endorsement made by Justice Grace.

Sincerely,


Brenda Lester > From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: RE: DRAFT Order re stay
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:22:29 +0000
>
> Hmmm, what you are doing is technically two separate motions. The first is the urgent ex parte motion and the second is the bigger interim possession motion. You may have to pay 2X fees. My concern is that if they don't have the court file from the Stratford office they can't really take any filing of paperwork there. All you could do is have the Order issued and entered, and then the court staff would transfer everything to Stratford.
>
> To be frank, I don't know what the staff are going to do. Take a copy of the Notice of Motion with you and keep it to show the Judge. Pay your motion fee, and just ask the judge what do to next. If s/he is concerned about making the urgent order, ask to stand it down, call me and I will service and file the Notice of Motion with proof of service and fax it to London for you.
>
>
> Martha Cook
> MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
> 10 Downie Street, Suite 302
> Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
> Tel: (519) 275-3888
> Fax: (519) 275-3885
> martha@cooklaw.ca
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Wilkinson
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:54 PM
> To: Martha Cook
>
> I see ... thank you for the explaination ... its just that the London trial co-ordinator said I would have to pay them for the notice of motion. How would the London court know I file and paid for it ?
>
> I believe I will have the Notice done by tonite.
> I can serve my mom on Sunday I suppose so that it just has to be filed. But I would need an affidavit of service as well.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: DRAFT Order re stay
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:32:54 +0000
>
>
>
> I am just trying to make sure that you are properly positioned to get the short term order pending have the motion heard.
>
>
>
> As we discussed, you are asking for a very short term order to be put in place just until the motion for interim possession can be properly determined on a full record. I do not want to see you before a Judge in London without having filed and served the Notice of Motion before appearing in court because you run into the same problem again..you need to have put the issue of interim possession in front of the court by filing the motion and paying the $127 filing fee so as to be reasonable in your request for a stay to have that motion heard and decided. If the Notice of Motion is not yet served and filed, the whole things becomes too vague to be compelling to a Judge.
>
>
>
> If you have the Notice of Motion ready, I can have it served and filed on Monday morning while you travel to London. Or, you can go to London on Tuesday after getting the Motion finalized so that you can show the full record to the Judge.
>
>
>
> From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:26 PM
> To: Martha Cook
> Subject: RE: DRAFT Order re stay
>
>
>
> Ummm ... I thought I was supposed to be in London court first thing on Monday morning?
>
>
>
> > From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> > To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> > Subject: RE: RE: DRAFT Order re stay
> > Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:18:55 +0000
> >
> > Yup, I am on my cellphone at 519-301-7758. Text or call. I am picking my son up from camp up near Tobermory tomorrow but will be back in the afternoon and can commission something on Saturday or Sunday.
> >
> > Have you filed your notice of motion yet? If not, make sure you file it 1st thing on Monday in Stratford even if the motion record proper is not ready- you can file the proper motion record later. You are still going to need to argue the RJR-McDonald case and persuade the judge that you meet all three aspects of the legal test on a motion for a stay - this is kind of set out in the early stay materials (1. Serious issue to be tried; 2. Uncompensable prejudice if order not made; and 3. Balance of convenience). Rompspen v. 151, attached, has a nice treatment of what is considered at this stage.
> >
> > An affidavit from Brian could assist in further demonstrating potential prejudice to you should the writ proceed.
> >
> > Your biggest hurdle is the serious issue and you will need to explain the serious issue based on the statement of claim, affidavit evidence and the law of resulting and/or constructive trust (see Memo, attached). Even the Court of Appeal struggled with (read: rejected) my submission that your claim for unjust enrichment can give rise to a constructive trust over a portion of the house equal to the unjust enrichment. I am sending you the key cases to demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be tried. You will want to have these cases with you along with your Mum's earlier affidavits showing that she does not occupy the home and that she intends to list and sell. As you learned in front of Tausenfreund, J., lack of prejudice to your mother is almost certain to win the day on such an urgent issue.
> >
> > Martha Cook
> > MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
> > 10 Downie Street, Suite 302
> > Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
> > Tel: (519) 275-3888
> > Fax: (519) 275-3885
> > martha@cooklaw.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Wilkinson
> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 4:29 PM
> > To: Martha Cook
> >
> > Hmmm ...
> > brother Brian is coming over and is willing to do another affidavit to counteract the one he put in before and to help deal with Wendy's interference ect ...
> >
> > is it possible to get his affidavit commissioned by you on the weekend so I can put it in the file for Monday ?
> >
> > just a thought ..
> >
> > as always ... thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: martha@cooklaw.ca
> > To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
> > Subject: DRAFT Order re stay
> > Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:01:52 +0000
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am amended your draft, see attached.
> >
> >
> >
> > Looking at your draft order, I wanted to let you know that you MUST put all of your evidence under an affidavit and in proper court format - you can't file a document brief: see Rule 37 & 39 of the Ontario Court Rules (the Rules are all online).
> >
> >
> >
> > I am sending you an index for the motion record along with cover page, all in proper format. Do you want me to bring your motion record from the stay application by? From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: DRAFT Order re stay
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:24:58 +0000
I won't be in the office until after you go so why don't i stop by later with some materials and i can xommission anything you need done them

Martha Cook
Martha Cook P.C.
Sent from my mobile device

On 2012-08-12, at 12:24 PM, "Ian Wilkinson" <iangwilkinson@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Martha ...

Ok I got everything ready except I don't have Gorman's Order or endorsement which I will get from the court and add to the file.

My plan is go to court ... swear my affidavit for the Stratford motion then serve Ritsma at 9 am tomorrow then file the Motion in Stratford and then take it to London. The trial co-ordinator knows I am coming and said that there is a judge with a hearing expected to take a couple or three hours. I will call tomorrow and tell them I am on my way.

Brian has not done an affidavit but I have mine to commission if you are coming around today (but no real need if it doesn't work out). Anneli works from 4 to 9 and I may give her a ride.

Either way ... I think I am good to go with your help ... thanks.


Ian From: Martha Cook [mailto:martha@cooklaw.ca]
Sent: August-10-12 12:56 PM
To: Kathryn M. Ritsma
Cc: Brenda Lester; Jody Swan; Ian Wilkinson
Subject: Wilkinson
Importance: High

Kathryn,

Culliton Law received mortgage instructions from Ian’s Lender, and it would appear that there is one last clear chance to resolve all matters between our clients on the basis of the current financing offer. Ian Wilkinson offers to settle all matters, including the outstanding costs order on the application and appeal, and the current action, on the basis of the Minutes of Settlement, executed by Ian and attached to this email. The content of the Minutes follow my letter of July 6, 2012 (a copy of which is attached for ease of reference) regarding the unlawful, abandoned underground storage tank located on the property under the wrap-around porch of the house.

Ian’s offer as attached is open for acceptance until 3pm next Tuesday, August 14th. I will have an original execution copy delivered to your office today for presentation to Doreen Wilkinson. Given the writ is due to be executed on Wednesday, Ian would appreciate hearing from your client as soon as possible, one way or the other, so that he can arrange his affairs.

Finally, further to my email attaching the Order approved as to form and content, may I please have a copy of the Order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario as issued and entered, for my files.

Martha Cook From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: August-01-12 2:49 PM
To: ritsma@stratfordlawyers.com
Subject: RE: restrictions on renovations

good afternoon ...

I am waiting on a response from my last offer to purchase. Can you advise on whether the latest offer has been accepted or rejected or whether more time is needed?

Further, have been holding contractors at bay that are waiting for payment for services done on the premises. I need some indication regarding this or I will advise them to seek legal recourse in their own right. Please advise on this.

Thank you


Ian G. Wilkinson

________________________________________
From: ritsma@stratfordlawyers.com
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: restrictions on renovations
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 18:37:40 +0000
Good afternoon: we have instructions to accept service of the Statement of Claim.

Yours truly,
Kathryn Ritsma From: Martha Cook [mailto:martha@cooklaw.ca]
Sent: July-30-12 4:40 PM
To: Ian Wilkinson
Cc: Jody Swan
Subject: RE: Meeting

Ian,

I have nothing from Ritsma so I agree there is no need to meet. If you want to me review the claim to ensure that all potential claims are properly pleaded, I will do it gratis as a personal favour. I have attached your affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory stay order so you have the precedent materials at your disposal. You will just need to update things. Let me know if there is anything else that might be of help – and you can come over any time and get copies of whatever you need out of the file.

I am not on the record on anything right now, so if you file under your own name, there is no additional paperwork to attend to.

Martha Cook
MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
10 Downie Street, Suite 302
Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
Tel: (519) 275-3888
Fax: (519) 275-3885
martha@cooklaw.ca



From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 2:26 PM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: Meeting

Hi Martha

It seems to me that the options are clear ...

I must go and file this claim today if Ritsma has not responded to you and given you assurances that she will not move on the eviction.

Assuming no clear assurances of such then I don't know what there is to talk about today. (not that I am against it ... just need an agenda I guess)

I agree with you that you should finish the negotiations if there is a settlement but if there is not then I don't want to burden you any further with this. You can have whatever Agent off the Record papers drawn up for me to come by and sign anytime. I will start pushing some money your way on the bill hopefully one way or the other.

Point being that if no 'good' word then assuming you think my claim is alright I will just go and file it as soon as I hear from you.


On the other hand if you have heard back from Ritsma maybe there is something to discuss.


Those are my thoughts ... let me know if you still want me to come up or you/I can call ...


thanks

Ian From: Martha Cook [mailto:martha@cooklaw.ca]
Sent: July-26-12 4:25 PM
To: Ian Wilkinson
Cc: Jody Swan
Subject: RE: RE:

Ian,

A couple of things:

1.Ritsma has already advised in correspondence that she would follow up with me upon her return to the office. I will send her a quick email asking for her early response on Monday.
2.You will still need to be served with a notice of eviction by the sheriff if they intend to evict.
3.They will not cease the eviction just because you start a new action – they will force you to bring an application for interlocutory relief. We discussed this on Friday – it can be based on essentially the same materials as were before Justice Tausenfreund.

Importantly, Ian, I don’t know how much more I can do for you from here. I have had no payment on my accounts for months, and I know that you are not in a position to make payment at this time. I don’t want to abandon you, but I have a business to run and this is creating an enormous financial strain on the firm. Jody will be rendering the final account on the appeal through to the end of July. Unless you can arrange some personal financing I am not going to be able to continue past discussions around the current offer to settle. I am happy to discuss this with you next week.

I am out of the office until Monday.

Martha Cook

From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: July-26-12 3:25 PM
To: martha@cooklaw.ca
Subject: RE:

Ok it's all good. That is about what I thought. Thanks.

I am getting Dirk Newbery to do up some estimates for the living room ceiling and the garage roof. I have not made any further inquiries about the UST.

For the month of July and August Anneli and I are profering up the receipts from Dirk for fixing the back roof. That will come in about $2,700.00. We have other receipts that I paid on their behalf.

We are taking a hard line position on this now. If there is a deal we can work it all out 'in the wash'. If not then I am not going to pay both rent and repairs to a house that is not mine. We are mentally prepared to move if we have to.

Maybe we should send an email to Ritsma stating that we are still waiting for a reply to our latest offer and spelling it out that we intend to file a Claim asking for interim possession if there is no settlement. Can we not ask that she give assurances that she not go forward on any eviction on the basis that we are going to file such a claim if they turn down our offer? If this was sent now then she would have to acknowledge that she got it as soon as she got back.


From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: RE:
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 19:03:11 +0000

Ian,

Ritsma may be in contact with them, but not with me. She is back on July 30th and I expect to hear from her shortly thereafter.

The appeal costs and the cost of the stay application heard in January before Tausenfreund J. were fixed together at just less than $10K. I don’t have a copy of the bill of costs, nor the endorsement, but I will give them to you when I get them.

The Court of Appeal made no finding about your status as a tenant.

I spoke to Mike Jones today and he confirmed his advice to your mother about the underground storage tank, and further confirmed that the discussion took place a ‘long time ago’ when your mother was still well and living in the house while the porch was all torn up and the UST exposed.


Martha Cook
MARTHA COOK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
10 Downie Street, Suite 302
Stratford, ON N5A 7K4
Tel: (519) 275-3888
Fax: (519) 275-3885
martha@cooklaw.ca



From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:03 AM
To: Martha Cook
Subject:

Hi Martha

Brian was here today and said he talked to brother Stephen who said a couple things I was unaware of. He said that the appeal costs of $10,000.00 was assessed against me and that the judges specifically stated that I was NOT a tenant.

1. Are these things true? (Not really my main concern because I knew there would be costs and that I am not claiming to be a tenant right now.

2. How could he know these things if Ritsma was not in contact with them. Is Ritsma in contact with them and if so can we get an indication of what is the current state of negotiations?

Thanks

Ian From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: July-19-12 8:04 PM
To: martha@cooklaw.ca
Subject: RE: Underground Storage Tank - Technical Standards & Safety Authority

Sorry one last point ...


It seems to me that the size of the place has been understated in the past cases. The context would be alot different if this was just any normal house. I think it has to be made very clear to the judges what this place is (25 rooms - 6 separate yards - four full floors) and how much is involved in even keeping it in maintainance let alone upgrade.


I can give you some figures if you want them just let me know.

________________________________________
From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: Underground Storage Tank - Technical Standards & Safety Authority
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:47:11 +0000
http://www.tssa.org/public/consumer/homeowners/consumerHome04.asp#faqs04
Ian, I may have already sent this to you but it is a good Q&A about the underground storage tank. I urge you to reconsider the purchase of the house at $375K or any other number in light of the unascertained risk of purchasing an environmental problem. I urge you to pursue a quantum meruit claim only and forgo the unknown risks inherent in owning 98 Douglas Street. I will against ask that you provide instructions to allow me to advise Ritsma that you are not pursuing a purchase and that you will accept the spread between the current appraised value and the $400K purchase price as full settlement of all claims.
As a final kick to Wendy, you could have the satisfaction of reporting the existence of the UST to the authorities….:)

Martha Cook July 3/12 -
Ritsma goes on holidays! From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Wilkinson - Letter to K. Ritsma
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 19:50:40 +0000
I will leave the Softening for discussions with Ritsma - not in writing.

Martha Cook
Martha Cook P.C.
Sent from my mobile device

On 2012-07-06, at 1:44 PM, "Ian Wilkinson" <iangwilkinson@hotmail.com> wrote:
ya that's all good. All of this sounds so 'take it or leave it' and really there is room for some discussion (eg. the option of discounting the tank removal is not mentioned). So the only concern of mine in this is that us sounding like we are playing hard ball again when there 'seemed' to me a softening of their position.

I am sure you have thought of that and have done the wording as best as can be so go ahead and get it done.

thanks

Ian


________________________________________
From: martha@cooklaw.ca
To: iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
CC: Jody@cooklaw.ca
Subject: RE: Wilkinson - Letter to K. Ritsma
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:30:06 +0000
To confirm, you want me to send the executed Minutes of Settlement at $375K to K. Ritsma, with the attached correspondence? Please confirm by return email.



From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 12:13 PM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: RE: Wilkinson - Letter to K. Ritsma

Assuming you have not sent the letters yet I think the following ...

1. send them over all the bad news about the oil tank (Anneli suggests that the first line of the letter be changed to say something like ' Recently the house was inspected by Peter Maranger for the purpose of Ian obtaining house insurance and an underground storage tank was discovered.) I don't really care either way.
2. The offer should be $375,000.00 or a discount up to the amount of the actual cost (funds held in reserve or something). My mom will want to discuss this with my siblings so she really needs to get this all for the week end otherwise it will be yet another week before we get any feedback.

Thanks for the legislation ... I will review it asap. From: Ian Wilkinson [mailto:iangwilkinson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 4:01 PM
To: Martha Cook
Subject: RE: Wilkinson Mortgage

Hi Martha

I have considered where we are and am sending the letter below directly to my mom. Please read it and consider.

I want to send an offer for $380,000.00 as stated and this letter to Ritzma as well. Then its all out in the open and we can let the chips fall where they may. If it doesn't settle then Anneli will put up the rent for July and go to the appeal.


Ian G. Wilkinson

98 Douglas Street

Stratford, Ontario

N5A 5P6







Doreen Wilkinson

318 Woodland Towers

643 West Gore Street

Stratford, ON

N5A 1L4



Wednesday, July-04-12

Mom





1. Rent



I have enclosed a cheque cover for the remainder of June. We had been expecting a settlement last month and so didn’t pay on the first. Kathryn refused to take it when she was here. I have tried to bring this cheque over at least three times unsuccessfully as I can’t even put it in your mailbox. Anneli sent a cheque to your lawyer but it has yet to be cashed. I will not take it to your lawyer as I am paying rent to YOU and not to her. I will get another cheque to you for July within a week or so and that will bring that up to date.





2. Settlement



I really believe everyone wants this issue to be settled. While I believe that a full trial would let the real truth come out I have the best interests of Anneli and the kids at forefront of my mind and they deserve stability and peace. To say that this situation has been difficult on them is an understatement.



Last year I had funding in place to be able to pay you $400,000 and have a bit of money left over to pay off all the contractors and get the house in shape to do something with. This year there are new financing rules for self employed people and so it has been MUCH more difficult to get the funding.



As it sits TODAY I can obtain funding up to $380,000.00 until I am actually on title and THEN I can refinance Anneli and I are trying to find a private loan for the extra $20,000.00 and but we have very little time before the appeal date of July 20 or the landlord tenant hearing of July 13, 2012.



I am still willing to offer $400,000.00 but to do this I need you to accept $380,000.00 and the other $20,000.00 in payments with interest and secured by a lean on the house. This gets the situation resolved and we can all have some security. I would refinance as soon as possible and pay out the $20,000.00 hopefully within a month. I intend to send an official NON-CONDITIONAL offer to that effect to your lawyer.



There is one other solution. I understand that you made an agreement with Brian for $30,000.00 and have paid him some $10,000.00 to date. I am willing to either take over that debt to cover the extra $20,000.00 I need or alternately you can give him that $20,000.00 and he can make that investment in the house himself and cover that last $20,000.00.



Bottom line of the logic here is that if you were willing to accept $400,000.00 then by the math my offer gives you 95% of what you want NOW and the remaining 5% within a year with interest. You still get the whole $400,000.00 so it is effectively the same thing when you include the interest.





3. Contractors



I have been covering all of the payments for the house and paid the contractors as much as I could up to now. There are at least six contractors with invoices in the thousands. I was going to pay them with the house proceeds and have been repeatedly putting them off by asking them to wait till this issue is resolved. I can not do that any more as they are getting pushed past there patience limit. If we can’t settle I will have no choice but to advise them that I am not the owner of the house and that they should look to you for payment as I simply cannot afford it. Anneli and I are paying the rent here and have two kids to take care of and have been financially (and emotionally) stressed by all this. If you want to sell then I will take care of the bills … if not then you will have to deal with them yourself.





4. House condition



I have worked my butt off to get this place in shape for sale but for me ... and Anneli … now the value of this whole deal is beginning to loose its appeal. Aside from the stress of the situation here are a few reasons …



We have found out that we have to remove the oil tank beneath the front porch to get insurance (with required environmental testing it could cost $10,000.00 or more). Jonesy told you to get it done when he had the porch floor off but you didn’t want to spend the money. I have just talked to Peter Maranger of Co-operator’s Insurance and he has said to me that this has to be disclosed to any buyer and that he can not give insurance on that until it is removed. You are welcome to call him. He won’t insure me if I buy until that is removed. In fact he says that your own current insurer must have overlooked it as they would require it be removed to continue your own insurance coverage as it is.





Further there has been a severe leak in the second floor bathroom which has caused damage to the living room ceiling (which was already sagging). The whole ceiling my have to be replaced but it certainly could not sell like that.



You already know that the garage and front porch roof needs to be replaced. Anneli and I already got the roof on the tool shed and the back bedrooms done at a cost of more than $3,000.00 and we can’t afford to spend any more so the damage is just getting worse. The whole garage structure is deteriorating badly.



There are two chimneys which are starting to shed bricks and so have to come down as it is a clear and present danger. I could do it but it would be better to have a professional do it.



The front steps are crumbling despite the flagstone I had put on. The guy did a bad job and so it has to be redone as someone could hurt themselves there.



There is still flooding in the basement via the back stairs and now in the fruit cellar. It has the chance of coming into the main basement area and so wrecking the laminate flooring.



The pillars that support the sun-porch are crumbling and have to be replaced. That is also a danger issue. I did some morter work but that is a temporary fix.



The crack in the second floor hallway is getting bigger so an architect has to have a look at it. This is a long known issue but still needs to be dealt with.



All the knob and tube wiring has to be replaced as well as any cast iron plumbing. This was in the plan anyways and I would have some lead time on that as a requirement for insurance.



A number of theses are significant and previously unconsidered costs (particularly the oil tank and the living room ceiling). I am still willing to go through with the purchase but you need to be aware of what you are dealing with if you don’t want to make a settlement. I am not going to do any more around here because if I don’t purchase then it is not my problem.









Resolution



I have done everything I can to resolve this situation. It was not me that cut off communication and the result is that we are where we are. I will never accept that a lawyer should get between us as mother and son. I am trying to do my best for everyone and especially give the kids a good environment to grow up in. I don’t think I could find anywhere better to give them as good a life as I could give them here. I would have wanted you to be supportive and happy about that. What has happened in the past could be ‘water under the bridge’ if we can get this resolved now. The alternative is that this family never has peace and that the litigation goes on for as long as I can see. No one wants that. We all want this resolved and so what happens now is entirely in your hands. I trust in your wisdom to accept one of my solutions or come up with your own as I can do no more.





Thanks for reading.







Ian STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM Dye & Durham CFS (Litigation 6.0)
(AGAINST PARTIES TO MAIN ACTION ONLY)
(Form 27A under the Rules)


Court file no. 12 2363

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

IAN GORDON WILKINSON
PLAINTIFF
and


DOREEN MARGARET WILKINSON

DEFENDANT

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

1. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 26 and 60 of the Statement of Claim.

2. The Defendant has no knowledge in respect of the allegations contained in paragraphs 12, 24, 27 through 32, 41, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the Statement of Claim and puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

3. The Defendant disputes and denies the allegations contained in the balance of the Statement of Claim and puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

4. The Defendant specifically denies the claims made by the Plaintiff in this action and further indicates that she intends to bring a Motion for security for costs as the Plaintiff owes her costs in the amount of $12,417.99 in connection with a previous Application commenced by her, being Court file number 2263-11 (Superior Court of Justice, Stratford), Court of Appeal proceeding heard July 20, 2012, which upheld the decision of Justice Gorman dated January 12, 2012, in Court file number 2263-11, and in relation to a Motion brought by the Plaintiff in this action heard in London, Ontario, by Justice Grace on August 14, 2012.

5. There is a history of litigation concerning this matter and there is a relevant history to the claims and allegations made by the Plaintiff in this action as set out in this Statement of Defence.

6. The Defendant states that she is the owner of a large home located at 98 Douglas Street, Stratford, purchased by the Defendant and her late husband when they moved to Stratford in 1969. The Defendant and her late husband are the parents of seven children. The eldest died in October, 2009. The Defendant’s husband died of a heart attack in February, 2007. The Defendant turned 89 on June 23, 2012.

7. The Defendant states that she resided at 98 Douglas Street in Stratford until June, 2009, when she suffered a fall at the home and was hospitalized. Following recuperation in the hospital, the Defendant had respite care at Anne Hathaway Residence in Stratford. The Defendant paid rent there for six months. Toward the end of the six months, the Defendant determined that her difficulty with stairs and with mobility would prevent her from returning to live at 98 Douglas Street so she purchased a unit in Woodland Towers (a senior citizens’ apartment building attached to a nursing home) by registering a line of credit of approximately $250,000.00 against her property at 98 Douglas Street, Stratford.

8. At the time the Defendant moved to Woodland Towers, two of her adult children, Ian Wilkinson, 51 years of age, and Brian Wilkinson, 56 years of age, were living at her home with her permission. The Defendant states that she agreed that Ian and Brian could live in her home until they finished their law degrees. The Defendant has always paid the taxes, utilities and all expenses associated with 98 Douglas Street.

9. The Defendant states that throughout her joint ownership of 98 Douglas Street with her late husband, Geoff, and since his death, various children and grandchildren lived at 98 Douglas Street for extended periods of time. For the most part, the children and grandchildren did not pay rent with the exception of a period from December, 2009 until June, 2010, when the Defendant’s son, Stephen Wilkinson, resided at 98 Douglas Street and paid rent of $800.00 per month.

10. The Defendant statues, and the fact is, that the annual taxes for 98 Douglas Street are $5,600.00 and that the interest being incurred on the line of credit to purchase her residence at Woodland Towers is over $10,000.00 per annum. In addition, the Defendant has the cost of home insurance, utilities, maintenance and general upkeep for the premises.

11. The Defendant states that in the spring of 2011 she wanted to regain possession of her home at 98 Douglas Street, Stratford and arrange for it to be sold as she was depleting her assets by financing two households and because the Plaintiff had completed his law degree and it was time for him to find his own residence.

12. The Defendant states that for several years she assisted the Plaintiff by gifting him money so that he could complete his Bachelor of Laws degree. Further, the Defendant states that the Plaintiff did work in Stratford as a paralegal over a number of years, prior to working on his Bachelor of Laws degree, and during that time resided at her home at 98 Douglas Street and paid no rent. Also, the Defendant and her late husband loaned several thousand dollars to the Plaintiff to assist him in his paralegal business prior to obtaining his Bachelor of Laws degree.

13. The Defendant states that her sources of income are a Survivor’s Pension from C.P.P., and a Survivor’s Pension from her late husband’s teaching position from which he retired in the early 1980s.

14. The Defendant states that she retained counsel to regain possession of her house and first attempted to do so by way of letter, then Trespass Notice served through counsel, and finally she had to commence an Application for a Writ of Possession in Superior Court of Justice (Stratford) Application number 2263-11 on October 5, 2011.

15. The Applicant for a Writ of Possession was heard on January 10, 2012, and Justice Gorman ordered a Writ of Possession effective immediately. This Order was appealed by the Plaintiff and heard by the Court of Appeal on July 20, 2012. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal of Justice Gorman’s Order and the Defendant regained possession of her premises on Wednesday, August 15, 2012.

16. The day before the Defendant regained possession of her home, the Plaintiff in this action brought an emergency Motion in London, Ontario, requesting that the Writ of Possession originally ordered by Justice Gorman on January 10, 2012, be set aside and this emergency Motion was dismissed.

17. The Defendant disputes the Plaintiff’s claim that he is entitled to compensation for any maintenance, upkeep or upgrading of her property at 98 Douglas Street. The Defendant disputes that the Plaintiff has any legal basis for a constructive trust claim against her and she disputes that he has any claim that entitles him to request specific performance of the conveyance of the Defendant’s property at 98 Douglas Street to him.

18. The Defendant states that no monies have ever been paid by Ian Wilkinson toward the upkeep and maintenance of her property and states that she and her late husband were always responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the home and for any cost of renovations.

19. The Defendant states that her late husband looked after most of the maintenance of the home until at least 2004. The Defendant states that the onset of her late husband’s Alzheimer’s Disease was in approximately 2003/2004. In July, 2006, the Defendant’s husband suffered a heart attack and he was then moved to the Alzheimer’s facility at Spruce Lodge. In February, 2007, the Defendant’s husband suffered a final heart attack and passed away.

20. The Defendant states that in 2004 her husband was no longer able to do the outside work at the home. The Defendant further states that her son, Brian Wilkinson, was responsible for grass cutting and snow shovelling from about 1990 and no money was paid to Brian by the Defendant and her late husband. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff’s primary responsibility while he resided at 98 Douglas Street was to take out the garbage and put salt in the water softener. The Defendant states that she had cleaners come to the home to clean and a gardener to look after the front gardens.

21. The Defendant states that the general chores which the Plaintiff undertook were done as part of a family commitment and were never to be compensated for in any way.

22. The Defendant states that she had heart bypass surgery in 2001 but after a six-week recovery time she was able to drive again, buy groceries and cook meals.

23. The Defendant states that a fire did gut the attic of the home in 2001 but the renovations were paid for by insurance and completed by outside contractors. The Defendant states that her late husband was healthy at that time and oversaw those repairs.

24. The Defendant states that some renovations were done to the basement of the home in 2005 and 2006. These renovations were paid for by way of a line of credit of $65,000.00 which the Defendant borrowed from the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the only contribution made by the Plaintiff was to check on the work being done by the contractors from time to time.

25. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff did some painting of outside trim in approximately 2005/2006 and she paid him approximately $4,000.00 for such work.

26. The Defendant states that neither she nor her late husband made any promise to sell 98 Douglas Street to the Plaintiff at any time. The Defendant agrees that the Plaintiff may have been interested in purchasing the home and made statements to that effect from time to time to her and to the family, but no promises were made to him.

27. The Defendant states that at no time did she give the Plaintiff authority to rent any space in her home or to have anyone else reside there. Specifically, she directed through counsel in April, 2011, that he not do so, as she became aware that the Plaintiff was renting space in her home without her authority.

28. The Defendant states that in her Application 2263-11 in Superior Court of Justice, Stratford, various negotiations took place to look at the possibility of the Plaintiff purchasing the home at 98 Douglas Street from the Defendant. These negotiations, however, were not concluded and the Defendant reached the decision that she did not want to sell the premises at 98 Douglas Street to the Plaintiff on any terms whatsoever as she felt that he would eventually not be able to afford the house and would lose it, he would not allow other family members to visit there, and based on the conduct of the Plaintiff toward Defendant in her Application 2263-11.

29. The Defendant denies that there is any basis whatsoever for a Certificate of Pending Litigation and that the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation of any amount is unjustified and inappropriate.

30. The Defendant further states that in Application 2263-11 Justice Tausendfreund, in his Stay Order of January 24, 2012, ordered that Ian Wilkinson pay the Defendant rent of $1,400.00 per month and $500.00 per month toward utilities commencing February 1, 2012. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff is in arrears of this Order to the extent of $2,850.00.

31. The Defendant further states that during the time the Plaintiff was in possession of 98 Douglas Street, sometime after she left the premises in July, 2009, he has altered the interior of her home by constructing “half closets” in various bedrooms, painting and other inappropriate alterations. The Defendant states that such alterations of 98 Douglas Street have decreased the value of her property and will have to be corrected before her property can be sold.

32. The Defendant requests that the Plaintiff’s action be dismissed with costs in favour of the Defendant.

Date: August 27, 2012
Monteith Ritsma Phillips LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
56 Albert Street, Box 846
Stratford, ON N5A 6W3
Attention: Kathryn M. Ritsma
(519) 271 6770
Fax: (519) 271 9261

Solicitors for the Defendant.

TO: IAN WILKINSON
iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
98 Douglas Street
Stratford, ON N5A 5P6
Plaintiff.



IAN GORDON WILKINSON and DOREEN MARGARET WILKINSON
PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
(Short title of proceeding) Court file no. 12 2363

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Proceeding commenced at Stratford, ON











STATEMENT OF DEFENCE






DYE & DURHAM CFS

Monteith Ritsma Phillips LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
56 Albert Street, Box 846
Stratford, Ontario
N5A 6W3

Attention: Kathryn M. Ritsma
24547C
(519) 271 6770
Fax: (519) 271 9261

Solicitors for the Defendant
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM Dye & Durham CFS (Litigation 6.0)
(AGAINST PARTIES TO MAIN ACTION ONLY)
(Form 27A under the Rules)


Court file no. 12 2363

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

IAN GORDON WILKINSON
PLAINTIFF
and


DOREEN MARGARET WILKINSON

DEFENDANT

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

1. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 4, 26 and 60 of the Statement of Claim.

2. The Defendant has no knowledge in respect of the allegations contained in paragraphs 12, 24, 27 through 32, 41, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the Statement of Claim and puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

3. The Defendant disputes and denies the allegations contained in the balance of the Statement of Claim and puts the Plaintiff to the strict proof thereof.

4. The Defendant specifically denies the claims made by the Plaintiff in this action and further indicates that she intends to bring a Motion for security for costs as the Plaintiff owes her costs in the amount of $12,417.99 in connection with a previous Application commenced by her, being Court file number 2263-11 (Superior Court of Justice, Stratford), Court of Appeal proceeding heard July 20, 2012, which upheld the decision of Justice Gorman dated January 12, 2012, in Court file number 2263-11, and in relation to a Motion brought by the Plaintiff in this action heard in London, Ontario, by Justice Grace on August 14, 2012.

5. There is a history of litigation concerning this matter and there is a relevant history to the claims and allegations made by the Plaintiff in this action as set out in this Statement of Defence.

6. The Defendant states that she is the owner of a large home located at 98 Douglas Street, Stratford, purchased by the Defendant and her late husband when they moved to Stratford in 1969. The Defendant and her late husband are the parents of seven children. The eldest died in October, 2009. The Defendant’s husband died of a heart attack in February, 2007. The Defendant turned 89 on June 23, 2012.

7. The Defendant states that she resided at 98 Douglas Street in Stratford until June, 2009, when she suffered a fall at the home and was hospitalized. Following recuperation in the hospital, the Defendant had respite care at Anne Hathaway Residence in Stratford. The Defendant paid rent there for six months. Toward the end of the six months, the Defendant determined that her difficulty with stairs and with mobility would prevent her from returning to live at 98 Douglas Street so she purchased a unit in Woodland Towers (a senior citizens’ apartment building attached to a nursing home) by registering a line of credit of approximately $250,000.00 against her property at 98 Douglas Street, Stratford.

8. At the time the Defendant moved to Woodland Towers, two of her adult children, Ian Wilkinson, 51 years of age, and Brian Wilkinson, 56 years of age, were living at her home with her permission. The Defendant states that she agreed that Ian and Brian could live in her home until they finished their law degrees. The Defendant has always paid the taxes, utilities and all expenses associated with 98 Douglas Street.

9. The Defendant states that throughout her joint ownership of 98 Douglas Street with her late husband, Geoff, and since his death, various children and grandchildren lived at 98 Douglas Street for extended periods of time. For the most part, the children and grandchildren did not pay rent with the exception of a period from December, 2009 until June, 2010, when the Defendant’s son, Stephen Wilkinson, resided at 98 Douglas Street and paid rent of $800.00 per month.

10. The Defendant statues, and the fact is, that the annual taxes for 98 Douglas Street are $5,600.00 and that the interest being incurred on the line of credit to purchase her residence at Woodland Towers is over $10,000.00 per annum. In addition, the Defendant has the cost of home insurance, utilities, maintenance and general upkeep for the premises.

11. The Defendant states that in the spring of 2011 she wanted to regain possession of her home at 98 Douglas Street, Stratford and arrange for it to be sold as she was depleting her assets by financing two households and because the Plaintiff had completed his law degree and it was time for him to find his own residence.

12. The Defendant states that for several years she assisted the Plaintiff by gifting him money so that he could complete his Bachelor of Laws degree. Further, the Defendant states that the Plaintiff did work in Stratford as a paralegal over a number of years, prior to working on his Bachelor of Laws degree, and during that time resided at her home at 98 Douglas Street and paid no rent. Also, the Defendant and her late husband loaned several thousand dollars to the Plaintiff to assist him in his paralegal business prior to obtaining his Bachelor of Laws degree.

13. The Defendant states that her sources of income are a Survivor’s Pension from C.P.P., and a Survivor’s Pension from her late husband’s teaching position from which he retired in the early 1980s.

14. The Defendant states that she retained counsel to regain possession of her house and first attempted to do so by way of letter, then Trespass Notice served through counsel, and finally she had to commence an Application for a Writ of Possession in Superior Court of Justice (Stratford) Application number 2263-11 on October 5, 2011.

15. The Applicant for a Writ of Possession was heard on January 10, 2012, and Justice Gorman ordered a Writ of Possession effective immediately. This Order was appealed by the Plaintiff and heard by the Court of Appeal on July 20, 2012. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal of Justice Gorman’s Order and the Defendant regained possession of her premises on Wednesday, August 15, 2012.

16. The day before the Defendant regained possession of her home, the Plaintiff in this action brought an emergency Motion in London, Ontario, requesting that the Writ of Possession originally ordered by Justice Gorman on January 10, 2012, be set aside and this emergency Motion was dismissed.

17. The Defendant disputes the Plaintiff’s claim that he is entitled to compensation for any maintenance, upkeep or upgrading of her property at 98 Douglas Street. The Defendant disputes that the Plaintiff has any legal basis for a constructive trust claim against her and she disputes that he has any claim that entitles him to request specific performance of the conveyance of the Defendant’s property at 98 Douglas Street to him.

18. The Defendant states that no monies have ever been paid by Ian Wilkinson toward the upkeep and maintenance of her property and states that she and her late husband were always responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the home and for any cost of renovations.

19. The Defendant states that her late husband looked after most of the maintenance of the home until at least 2004. The Defendant states that the onset of her late husband’s Alzheimer’s Disease was in approximately 2003/2004. In July, 2006, the Defendant’s husband suffered a heart attack and he was then moved to the Alzheimer’s facility at Spruce Lodge. In February, 2007, the Defendant’s husband suffered a final heart attack and passed away.

20. The Defendant states that in 2004 her husband was no longer able to do the outside work at the home. The Defendant further states that her son, Brian Wilkinson, was responsible for grass cutting and snow shovelling from about 1990 and no money was paid to Brian by the Defendant and her late husband. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff’s primary responsibility while he resided at 98 Douglas Street was to take out the garbage and put salt in the water softener. The Defendant states that she had cleaners come to the home to clean and a gardener to look after the front gardens.

21. The Defendant states that the general chores which the Plaintiff undertook were done as part of a family commitment and were never to be compensated for in any way.

22. The Defendant states that she had heart bypass surgery in 2001 but after a six-week recovery time she was able to drive again, buy groceries and cook meals.

23. The Defendant states that a fire did gut the attic of the home in 2001 but the renovations were paid for by insurance and completed by outside contractors. The Defendant states that her late husband was healthy at that time and oversaw those repairs.

24. The Defendant states that some renovations were done to the basement of the home in 2005 and 2006. These renovations were paid for by way of a line of credit of $65,000.00 which the Defendant borrowed from the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the only contribution made by the Plaintiff was to check on the work being done by the contractors from time to time.

25. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff did some painting of outside trim in approximately 2005/2006 and she paid him approximately $4,000.00 for such work.

26. The Defendant states that neither she nor her late husband made any promise to sell 98 Douglas Street to the Plaintiff at any time. The Defendant agrees that the Plaintiff may have been interested in purchasing the home and made statements to that effect from time to time to her and to the family, but no promises were made to him.

27. The Defendant states that at no time did she give the Plaintiff authority to rent any space in her home or to have anyone else reside there. Specifically, she directed through counsel in April, 2011, that he not do so, as she became aware that the Plaintiff was renting space in her home without her authority.

28. The Defendant states that in her Application 2263-11 in Superior Court of Justice, Stratford, various negotiations took place to look at the possibility of the Plaintiff purchasing the home at 98 Douglas Street from the Defendant. These negotiations, however, were not concluded and the Defendant reached the decision that she did not want to sell the premises at 98 Douglas Street to the Plaintiff on any terms whatsoever as she felt that he would eventually not be able to afford the house and would lose it, he would not allow other family members to visit there, and based on the conduct of the Plaintiff toward Defendant in her Application 2263-11.

29. The Defendant denies that there is any basis whatsoever for a Certificate of Pending Litigation and that the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation of any amount is unjustified and inappropriate.

30. The Defendant further states that in Application 2263-11 Justice Tausendfreund, in his Stay Order of January 24, 2012, ordered that Ian Wilkinson pay the Defendant rent of $1,400.00 per month and $500.00 per month toward utilities commencing February 1, 2012. The Defendant states that the Plaintiff is in arrears of this Order to the extent of $2,850.00.

31. The Defendant further states that during the time the Plaintiff was in possession of 98 Douglas Street, sometime after she left the premises in July, 2009, he has altered the interior of her home by constructing “half closets” in various bedrooms, painting and other inappropriate alterations. The Defendant states that such alterations of 98 Douglas Street have decreased the value of her property and will have to be corrected before her property can be sold.

32. The Defendant requests that the Plaintiff’s action be dismissed with costs in favour of the Defendant.

Date: August 27, 2012
Monteith Ritsma Phillips LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
56 Albert Street, Box 846
Stratford, ON N5A 6W3
Attention: Kathryn M. Ritsma
(519) 271 6770
Fax: (519) 271 9261

Solicitors for the Defendant.

TO: IAN WILKINSON
iangwilkinson@hotmail.com
98 Douglas Street
Stratford, ON N5A 5P6
Plaintiff.



IAN GORDON WILKINSON and DOREEN MARGARET WILKINSON
PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
(Short title of proceeding) Court file no. 12 2363

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Proceeding commenced at Stratford, ON











STATEMENT OF DEFENCE






DYE & DURHAM CFS

Monteith Ritsma Phillips LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
56 Albert Street, Box 846
Stratford, Ontario
N5A 6W3

Attention: Kathryn M. Ritsma
24547C
(519) 271 6770
Fax: (519) 271 9261

Solicitors for the Defendant
See the full transcript