Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• SCIV Inc. obtained a judgment and writ of possession against Patrycja Pilaszek following her default on a $130,000 mortgage, and Ms. Pilaszek sought a stay of enforcement pending her appeal.
• The three-part test for a stay pending appeal — serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience — was applied, with Ms. Pilaszek bearing the onus to satisfy all three prongs.
• No serious issue for appeal was found, as Ms. Pilaszek's fraud allegations were unsupported by evidence and her new quantum argument had not been raised before the motion judge.
• Irreparable harm was not established because the loss of possession upon mortgage default was a contractually accepted consequence, not a novel or uncompensable harm.
• Denial of Ms. Pilaszek's adjournment request did not constitute a breach of procedural fairness, given the 18-month duration of proceedings and her late decision to self-represent.
• Full indemnity costs were properly awarded against Ms. Pilaszek due to unsupported fraud allegations and evidence of threats and intimidation directed at SCIV representatives.

Facts of the case

On April 12, 2023, SCIV Inc. registered a one-year mortgage loan of $130,000 at an 11.5% annual interest rate against a property owned by Patrycja Pilaszek at 3250 Bentley Drive, Unit 17, Mississauga, Ontario. Ms. Pilaszek was represented by independent legal counsel during the transaction. She defaulted on the mortgage on March 12, 2024, and the charge matured on April 12, 2024, with no renewal, amendment, or extension offered. Ms. Pilaszek remained in default throughout the proceedings. On April 26, 2024, SCIV's solicitors served her with a notice of sale under mortgage and notice of intention to enforce security. SCIV issued its statement of claim on June 4, 2024, and the parties exchanged pleadings before SCIV brought a motion for summary judgment.

A timetable for the summary judgment motion was endorsed on October 10, 2024, and a further timetable was endorsed on September 18, 2025, requiring the filing of facta and completion of cross-examinations by December 19, 2025. The parties returned to court on January 8, 2026, and the motion was scheduled for March 24, 2026. On March 13, 2026 — approximately one week before the hearing — Ms. Pilaszek served her own affidavit and a document titled "Defendant's Factum," indicating she no longer intended to rely on materials filed by her then-counsel and would represent herself. At the hearing, she sought an adjournment, which was denied. The motion judge granted SCIV's motion for summary judgment, dismissed Ms. Pilaszek's counterclaim, ordered her to pay the amounts owing to SCIV and deliver possession of the property, and awarded costs on a full indemnity basis. Judgment was issued on March 24, 2026, and a writ of possession was granted on April 16, 2026. Ms. Pilaszek filed a notice of appeal on March 31, 2026, and subsequently brought the present motion seeking a stay of enforcement pending appeal.

Policy terms and contractual clauses at issue

The mortgage was governed by "Standard Charge Terms," to which Ms. Pilaszek agreed. Those terms entitled SCIV to enter, lease, or sell the mortgaged property upon default of payment after 15 days. The enforceability of these terms — and Ms. Pilaszek's knowing acceptance of them with the assistance of independent legal counsel — became central to the court's analysis of both the irreparable harm and balance of convenience prongs of the stay test.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court of Appeal applied the three-part test established in RJR-Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, requiring the moving party to demonstrate: (a) a serious issue to be tried on appeal; (b) irreparable harm if the stay is denied; and (c) that the balance of convenience favours granting the stay. Ms. Pilaszek bore the onus of satisfying all three elements.

On the first prong, the court found no serious issue. Ms. Pilaszek raised a new argument on appeal — that the amount advanced was less than $130,000, and that bank records showed a deposit of only $111,218.15 — but she had not disputed the quantum before the motion judge. SCIV maintained the total owing was $166,436.28, representing the principal plus interest and additional charges. The court held that the amount owing was reflected in the judgment and supported by the evidence before the motion judge. As for the fraud allegations, the court noted that Ms. Pilaszek's submissions on appeal did not focus on those allegations, and the motion judge had found they were unsupported by any proper evidence. The court further cited Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, for the proposition that a respondent to a summary judgment motion must show its defence has a real chance of success, and that bald assertions and unsupported allegations do not create genuine issues for trial. On the adjournment, the court found no procedural unfairness: the matter had been outstanding for 18 months, examinations had been completed and materials filed, and Ms. Pilaszek had terminated her lawyer's services only one week before the hearing. On costs, the court found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretion to award full indemnity costs, noting evidence of threats and intimidation directed at SCIV representatives and that Ms. Pilaszek had advanced fraud allegations without supporting evidence.

On the second prong, the court held that Ms. Pilaszek had not established irreparable harm. The potential loss of her property was a consequence expressly contemplated — and contractually accepted — under the Standard Charge Terms. Citing Park v. Manulife Bank of Canada, 2025 ONCA 815, the court held that a chargor cannot contractually accept the consequences of default and then invoke that same consequence as irreparable harm to forestall enforcement. Ms. Pilaszek also failed to adduce evidence of permanent and non-compensable harm beyond the loss of possession itself.

On the third prong, the court found the balance of convenience favoured SCIV. SCIV had been deprived of the benefit of its security for nearly two years, and a stay would further extend that deprivation while SCIV bore the cost of delay. The interests of justice did not support prolonging a two-year default on grounds that disclosed no serious issue on appeal.

Ruling and overall outcome

The motion for a stay of the judgment and writ of possession was denied in its entirety. SCIV Inc. was the successful party on this motion. The court's decision preserved the judgment obtained by SCIV — which included an order for Ms. Pilaszek to pay $166,436.28 (comprising the $130,000 principal, interest, and additional charges) and to deliver possession of the Mississauga property — as well as the full indemnity costs award. The exact quantum of the costs order is not specified in the decision.