Who is Antonio Turco?

Antonio Turco is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2013 to 2015.

What courts has Antonio Turco appeared in?

Antonio Turco has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Antonio Turco handled?

Antonio Turco has 3 cases on record from 2013 to 2015.

What judges has Antonio Turco appeared before?

Antonio Turco has most frequently appeared before Justice Graeme Mew, Justice Edward M. Morgan.

Antonio Turco | Lawyer

3 total

Miguna Miguna v. Walmart Canada Corp. et al., 2015 ONSC 6835

Following the dismissal of a copyright infringement action on summary judgment, the successful corporate defendants sought costs of the motions and the broader action.

The self‑represented plaintiff, who was also a qualified lawyer, argued that no costs should be awarded due to his modest means and good faith prosecution of the claim.

The court applied the normative Ontario approach that costs follow the event and are generally awarded on a partial indemnity basis under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that financial hardship was not established and that the plaintiff, as an experienced lawyer, understood the risks of adverse costs.

Applying reasonableness and proportionality principles, the court fixed costs at $50,000 for one defendant and $70,000 for the other.

SCJNov 9, 2015

Applicant Counsel

Miguna Miguna v. Walmart Canada Corp. et al., 2015 ONSC 5744

The plaintiff alleged copyright infringement relating to the distribution and online listing of his book.

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Rule 20, arguing there was no evidence they had printed, distributed, or sold infringing copies and that any online listing occurred outside Canada.

The court held that the evidentiary record established the defendants never possessed or sold copies of the book and that the online listing did not create a sufficient connection to Canada to engage the Copyright Act.

The court also found no evidence supporting claims of secondary infringement or infringement of moral rights.

As there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

SCJSep 18, 2015

Applicant Counsel

Mark C. Stever v. Rainbow International Carpet Dyeing & Cleaning Co. et al., 2013 ONSC 4054

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by a limitation period.

The court held that the moving parties failed to provide a proper evidentiary record, relying largely on pleadings and correspondence and offering only a legal assistant as affiant.

Applying the principles in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court found that a full appreciation of the issues requires substantive affidavit evidence and adequate disclosure, particularly where discoverability may be engaged.

Given the absence of documentary discovery and meaningful evidence from the defendants, the motion was premature.

The motion was adjourned to permit documentary and oral discoveries before the summary judgment motion proceeds.

SCJJun 11, 2013