Sokil v. Buffone, 2024 ONCA 127

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Sokil v. Buffone, 2024 ONCA 127 DATE: 20240221 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0195 Tulloch C.J.O., Hourigan and Zarnett JJ.A. BETWEEN Elizabeth Ann Buffone Applicant(Respondent) and Barbara Sokil in her capacity as executrix for the Estate of Eleanor Bobbie,deceased, and in her personal capacity* and William M.

Sokil Respondents(Appellant*) Barbara Lynn Sokil, acting in person Christopher Salazar, for the respondent BMO Trust Company Jonathan Friedman, for the respondent Elizabeth Ann Buffone William Sokil, acting in person Heard and released orally: February 20, 2024 On appeal from the order of Justice Cory A. Gilmore of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 17, 2023. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an appeal from a contempt order and a costs order in an estate proceeding. The appellant, Barbara Sokil was named asalternate executor of the estate of her deceased aunt, Eleanor Bobbie (the “Estate”).

The appellant and the respondents Elizabeth Buffoneand William Sokil are equal beneficiaries of the Estate pursuant to

Part II of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26. TheEstate included a residential property. [2] In an order dated December 13, 2022 (“the Cavanagh Order”), Cavanagh J. appointed BMO Trust Company as the EstateTrustee During Litigation (“ETDL”). The Cavanagh Order included the following terms: (

i) the appellant was to grant the ETDL accessto the property; (ii) the ETDL was granted leave to issue a writ of possession with respect to the property; and (iii) the appellant wasordered to produce to the ETDL all documents related to the estate and estate funds. [3] The ETDL brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the appellant for her alleged failure to comply with the CavanaghOrder and an order validating alternative service by email/courier of the contempt motion record. It also sought an order for immediatepossession of the property.

The motion judge found the appellant in contempt but the only punishment for the contempt she ordered wasto advance the date on which the appellant was to vacate the Estate property. She also ordered that the appellant pay costs of the motionto the ETDL in the amount of $18,000 and that this sum be paid directly from her portion of the Estate upon any distribution. [4] The appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal. She was previously granted an unopposed adjournment of the appeal, butthe ETDL and Mr. Sokil oppose any further adjournment. The appellant did not attend at the hearing of the appeal.

Her request for anadjournment is unsupported by any sworn evidence and strikes as a further attempt to simply delay the determination of her appeal. Forthese reasons, we denied the request for an adjournment. [5] We agree with the submission of counsel for the ETDL that the appeal is largely moot as the property has been sold. In anyevent, regarding the merits of the appeal, we see no basis for interfering with the motion judge’s order for substituted service or herfinding of contempt, which were well supported by the evidence. [6] The appellant requires leave to appeal the costs award.

Leave to appeal a costs order will not be granted except in obvious caseswhere the party seeking leave convinces the court there are “strong grounds upon which the appellate court could find that the judgeerred in exercising his discretion”: Brad-Jay Investments Limited v. Village Developments Limited (2006), (ON CA),218 O.A.C. 315 (C.A.), at para. 21, leave to appeal refused, [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 92. We are not satisfied that the appellant has met heronus, as we see no error in the trial judge’s awarding of costs. [7] The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant shall pay ETDL its costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive

sum of $8,492.44. These costs shall be paid directly from the appellant’s share of the Estate. This costs award is without prejudice to any claims that Mr. Sokil and Ms. Buffone may make against the appellant in the estate proceeding for costs she has caused the Estate to incur. “M. Tulloch C.J.O.” “C.W. Hourigan J.A.” “B. Zarnett J.A.”