The court found that their claim to remain in the property was based on an inauthentic document
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered a father and daughter to pay occupation rent for their extended stay in the family home after a relative's death, following a ruling that their claim to remain in the property was based on an inauthentic document.
The dispute, which has involved lengthy litigation, centred on Bruno Siiman’s sole property following his death. The estate trustee, a family friend, sought to sell the property to settle the estate, but the respondents, Michael Siiman and his daughter Liivia, refused to vacate, delaying the process.
The Superior Court heard that Michael and Liivia had lived in the property since 2004 and continued to reside there following Bruno Siiman’s death. Michael argued that his late father had wished for them to stay on the property until Liivia finished her university studies at the University of Toronto. Michael presented a document, allegedly signed by Bruno in 2018, to support this claim. However, in a previous decision, the court had already ruled the document inauthentic, which cast doubt on the respondents' defence.
The estate trustee had repeatedly requested that the respondents vacate the property and eventually sought an order for their removal to facilitate the sale. In January, the court ordered the respondents to leave by February 16. When they failed to comply, a writ of possession was enforced, leading to their eviction.
In the most recent decision, the court ruled that the respondents must pay occupation rent for the 28 months they had lived in the home without contributing to rent or carrying costs. The court rejected the respondents’ claims that they had made $50,000 in repairs to the property, including resolving issues of mold, asbestos, and a rat infestation, stating there was no evidence of such expenditures. Additionally, any repairs made without notice or authorization were deemed unrecoverable.
Beyond the rent, the court ordered the respondents to pay carrying costs for utilities such as gas, electricity, and water. They were also required to cover other damages, including costs for packing and storing their belongings after eviction, changing the property’s locks, and expert reports to disprove claims of mold and asbestos.
Although Michael indicated a willingness to cover the property’s carrying costs, the court noted that he and his daughter had not made any payments for rent or utilities since Bruno Siiman’s death. The total amounts owed by the respondents will be deducted from Michael’s share of the estate, which is the largest portion, per the terms of the deceased’s will.
Most Read
