Endorsement: Gregoriou (Re), 2025 ONSC 1342

COURT FILE NO.: 31-2782032
DATE: 2025-02-28
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO (COMMERCIAL LIST)
RE: In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Eliatha Gregoriou
BEFORE: Kimmel, J.
COUNSEL:

• Mr. Angelo Giuseppe Zitella, Self-represented Appellant (did not attend)
• Bruce Simpson, for the Bankrupt Eliatha Gregoriou
• Matthew Moloci, for MNP Ltd., Trustee in Bankruptcy
  HEARD: 2025-02-11

Endorsement (Appeal from the October 31, 2024 Decision of Rappos A.J.)

The Decision of the Court Below and this Appeal

[1] Angelo Zitella ("Zitella") is the ex-husband of the Bankrupt, Eliatha Gregoriou (the "Bankrupt" or the "Debtor"). Zitella caused a Notice of Appeal to be issued on November 12, 2024 by which he seeks to appeal from the October 31, 2024 decision of Rappos A.J., sitting as the Registrar in Bankruptcy: Re Gregoriou, 2024 ONSC 5972 (the "Decision").

[2] The Decision expunged Zitella's notice of objection to the discharge of the Bankrupt and expunged the proof of claim he filed in this bankruptcy proceeding based upon the finding pursuant to s. 4.2 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (“BIA”) that Zitella had failed to act in good faith in the course of this bankruptcy proceeding. The judgment arising from the Decision was settled on December 16, 2024 (the "Judgment"), in compliance with this court's direction that it be finalized before the appeal hearing. The Decision granted two of the three primary heads of relief that the Bankrupt sought on a motion that was heard by Rappos A.J. on July 31, 2024.

[3] The third head of relief sought on that motion was granted on July 31, 2024. It reduced the amount of Zitella's proof of claim by the $17,759.07 he already received from garnishments of the Bankrupt's wages: see Re Gregoriou, 2024 ONSC 4295. Zitella does not appeal the July 31, 2024 decision, only the October 31, 2024 decision.

[4] Associate Justice Rappos has not yet rendered a costs decision in connection with the matters heard on July 31, 2024.

[5] In his Notice of Appeal, Zitella seeks an order setting aside the Decision and the Judgment and requests that a judgment be granted in his favour, awarding him the OPTRUST PENSION (that he asserts was ordered by Mullins J. in an unreported decision rendered in earlier family law proceedings that appears (from how it has been described) to have been for an order of division of family property that included this pension).

[6] Zitella also seeks an award of $150,000 in costs of this appeal against the Bankrupt, her legal counsel, the current and former legal counsel for the Trustee in Bankruptcy MNP Ltd. (the “Trustee"), a vice president of the Trustee and the named Trustee, Rappos A.J., and two Official Receivers at the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy ("OSB").

Summary of Outcome of the Appeal

[7] For the reasons that follow, Zitella's Notice of Appeal of the Decision is struck, or alternatively, his appeal is dismissed. The Decision is upheld. Zitella is ordered to pay forthwith the full indemnity costs of this appeal and the Motion to Strike (described below) to the Bankrupt in the fixed amount of $29,102.90 and the full indemnity costs of the appeal to the Trustee in the fixed amount of $10,737.82. Both costs amounts are inclusive of all claimed fees, disbursements and applicable taxes.

Preliminary Matters

[8] At the outset of the appeal, two preliminary matters were addressed.

a) Zitella's Non-Attendance at the Appeal

[9] Zitella did not attend the appeal hearing. The reasons for this are documented in endorsements of the court dated February 5 and 7, 2025. In summary, Zitella advised the court on January 29, 2025 that he had been making audio recordings of all proceedings before this court and before Associate Justices Ilchenko and Rappos (sitting as the Registrar in Bankruptcy), and he further stated that he intended to make and broadcast an audio recording of this appeal.

[10] Zitella had been notified repeatedly that it was an offence to make an audio or any other recording of court proceedings in Ontario under s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. Zitella had also been specifically cautioned about doing this by Rappos A.J. in both a June 5, 2024 endorsement that directed Zitella to delete any recordings that he may have in his possession of case conferences or court hearings that he previously attended and to refrain from recording any case conferences or court hearings that he may attend, and in the October 31, 2024 Decision itself.

[11] This blatant and flagrant disregard for the court's process resulted in a direction from the court in the February 5, 2025 endorsement that the appeal would be heard in person in Toronto, rather than by Zoom. The failure to comply with s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act and with the court's prior orders and directions is subject to sanction or enforcement. Section 101 of the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction of the Superior Court of Justice states that anyone who uses an electronic device in a manner that is inconsistent with s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act, any orders of the presiding judge or that the presiding judge determines to be unacceptable may be: (a) subject to prosecution for breaches of s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act, (b) a citation and prosecution for contempt of court, or (c) prosecution for other offences.

[12] In light of this direction, Zitella (who currently resides in Italy) was afforded the opportunity in the February 5, 2025 endorsement to seek an adjournment so that he could make arrangements to travel to Toronto to attend the appeal in person, or to make arrangements to retain a lawyer to attend the appeal on his behalf. He did not request an adjournment or make any such arrangements. It was confirmed by the court's endorsement of February 7, 2025 that the appeal would proceed on February 11, 2025 as scheduled and in person. It proceeded in Zitella's absence, but with reference to his Notice of Appeal and Appeal Factum, previously filed, and the other material in the Appeal Record, described later in this endorsement.

b) The Bankrupt's Preliminary Motion to Strike the Appeal

[13] On November 4, 2024, four days after the Decision was rendered, Zitella was advised by Rappos A.J. in his unreported endorsement of that day (at paragraphs 10-12) that Rule 30 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules, C.R.C., c. 368 ("BIA Rules") and s. 192(4) of the BIA direct that any appeal from an order or decision of the Registrar in Bankruptcy be made by motion to a Judge (sitting on the Commercial List when the proceedings are in Toronto). Zitella was also advised that he was required to file a notice of motion that sets out the grounds of the appeal with the Commercial List Office and serve it on the other parties within ten days after the date of the Decision, unless a Judge of the Commercial List provided him with additional time. The ten days expired on November 10, 2024.

[14] Despite this, Zitella waited until November 12, 2024 to issue his Notice of Appeal and never sought leave of the court for additional time, either before or after the Notice of Appeal was issued. Zitella did not ask for additional time even after this defect was raised by the Bankrupt at the first scheduling appointment for the appeal on December 9, 2024 and was formally challenged in the Bankrupt's subsequent motion to strike the appeal dated December 17, 2024 (the "Motion to Strike").

[15] The court directed that the Motion to Strike be heard at the same time as the appeal. Counsel for the Bankrupt, supported by the Trustee, asks the court to conclude, based on Zitella's conduct in the course of this proceeding, that the late delivery of his Notice of Appeal was intentional and a continuation of his general flaunting of, and disrespect for, the Rules and the process of this court.

[16] In the Decision, Rappos A.J. makes findings about Zitella's conduct and lack of good faith. These findings can be found variously in the Decision, including in the following paragraphs (footnotes omitted):

[50] Having taken into consideration Mr. Zitella's conduct during this proceeding, and considered the concepts of good faith discussed above, I find that Mr. Zitella has failed to act in good faith throughout this proceeding. The e-mails and voicemails he sent to parties have been abusive. They were sent to pursue a strategy of harassment and intimidation. They were vexatious, meant to harass others and force them to incur unnecessary costs. Mr. Zitella is effectively conducting a war of attrition, which he appears to take pleasure in.

[51] His conduct has resulted in the use of an inordinate amount of judicial resources to address his constant demands. He has openly flouted and acted against orders of this Court. He has failed time and time again to treat parties and this Court with respect and act in a civil manner that maintains the requirement of decorum in a courtroom. His actions have unfairly increased the costs incurred by Ms. Gregoriou and the Trustee, which have depleted the assets that would have been available to be distributed to creditors. He has compromised the integrity of the bankruptcy process through his attempts to delay matters in this proceeding.

[54] In my view, the striking Mr. Zitella's claim and striking his notice of objection to Ms. Gregoriou's discharge are appropriate consequences for the utter disregard with which Mr. Zitella has treated parties and the Court in this proceeding….

[55] … I have found that Mr. Zitella has failed to act in good faith in this bankruptcy proceeding, and have exercised the discretion afforded to me under section 4.2 of the BIA to expunge his proof of claim and his notice of objection to discharge.

[17] Zitella refused to attend the hearing on July 31, 2024 of the motion appealed from (even by Zoom). The Bankrupt submits that this was a clear demonstration of his lack of respect and disdain for the court’s process. This lack of respect and disdain for the Rules of this court and its process has continued in these appeal proceedings, culminating in Zitella's January 29, 2025 email that resulted in the February 5 and 7, 2025 endorsements (referred to above).

[18] The ten-day appeal period from the Decision expired on November 10, 2024. Mr. Zitella did not serve his Notice of Appeal until November 12, 2024. Zitella knew about the time limit within which he had to issue and serve his Notice of Appeal. Zitella has not provided an explanation as to why he did not appeal in the manner required and within the statutory time limit to appeal—both which were explained to him by Rappos A.J. He not only missed the ten-day statutory time limit under BIA Rules, but did not bother to ask the court for an extension in the time to serve and file his Notice of Appeal.

[19] In all of the circumstances, this appeal should be viewed as a continuation of Mr. Zitella's "war of attrition" as described by Rappos A.J. in the Decision.

[20] There is no reason for the court, on its own initiative, to extend an indulgence to a litigant like Zitella who has not asked for the indulgence and who has abused other privileges that the court has extended to him, such as originally permitting him to appear on the appeal by Zoom despite the fact that the appeal hearing was presumptively to be held in person under the Consolidated Practice Direction Concerning the Commercial List. That was a privilege he abused by blatantly breaching the statutory prohibition in s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act (described above).

[21] To the contrary, where a party acts in an intentional and contumelious manner with disdain and disrespect for court-imposed directions and specified timelines, as Zitella has done in these proceedings, they do so at their own peril and ought not be afforded any further relief or indulgence from the court: see New Solutions Financial Corporation v. Zilkey, 2011 ONSC 448, paras. 17-43.

[22] Even if Zitella had sought to extend the time to appeal or the court was inclined to do so on its own initiative, the test for granting an extension has not been satisfied because it is not apparent from the record that there is a valid reason why the appeal was not filed within the statutory appeal period considering that the timelines were set out by Rappos A.J. in his November 4, 2024 endorsement. This is one of the requirements that must be satisfied for an extension in time for an appeal to be granted: see Re Dimant (1980), 31 O.R. (2d) 371 (S.C.), p. 373; Re Bankruptcy of Zeev Saban, 2012 ONSC 223, paras. 2 and 9. More recently, in Netlink Computer Inc. (Re), 2019 BCSC 20, para. 7, the Supreme Court of British Columbia stated that the applicant’s failure to provide an explanation as to why steps were not taken prior to the expiry of the appeal period was fatal to the application, with reference to Saban at paras. 2 and 9.

[23] Further, Zitella has not presented an arguable ground for appeal (for reasons elaborated upon later in this endorsement) and that is another of the requirements that must be satisfied for the time to appeal to be extended. The absence of any specified valid grounds for appeal (which Rule 30 of the BIA Rules requires the Notice of Appeal to specify) will be addressed when the merits of the appeal are considered later in this endorsement.

[24] This is an appropriate case for the Notice of Appeal to be struck. It is a nullity, not having been brought within the statutory appeal period and no application for an extension in time having been made.

[25] This decision is not made lightly. The court recognizes that it is only in rare circumstances that an appeal under s. 194 of the BIA and Rule 30 of the BIA Rules (which give the court discretion to extend the time for appeal) will be disposed of (struck) for late delivery of the Notice of Appeal by only two days. However, the extreme circumstances of this case warrant that outcome. No represented party would be permitted to conduct themselves the way Zitella has and his egregious conduct cannot be condoned. The integrity of the bankruptcy process is at stake and that was the very justification for Rappos A.J. invoking s. 4.2 of the BIA in the first place. This is not a matter of access to justice for Zitella.

[26] The court has made many efforts to accommodate him because he is self-represented, and he has continued to treat the court and its process with disdain and utter disregard. Zitella is not a self-represented litigant who is deserving of an extraordinary helping hand from the court given how he has treated the court and its officers throughout these proceedings.

[27] There has to be a balance between access to justice and reasonable accommodations afforded to self-represented litigants that requires them, in turn, to demonstrate that they are making reasonable efforts to comply with the court’s rules and process and to respect them, not treat them with disdain as Zitella has been doing throughout and continues to do.

[28] The order striking the Notice of Appeal is dispositive on its own. However, I will deal with various other arguments raised in support of the dismissal of the appeal, so that all points have been addressed.

The Appeal

[29] If I had not granted the Bankrupt's Motion to Strike Zitella's Notice of Appeal, I would have dismissed the appeal, with regard to the Appeal Record, the written submissions of all parties and the oral submissions of the responding parties.

a) The Appeal Record

[30] It was confirmed in the court's February 5, 2025 endorsement and at the outset of the appeal that the Appeal Record is comprised of:

a. Mr. Zitella's Notice of Appeal issued November 12, 2024
b. Mr. Zitella’s Appeal Factum dated November 26, 2024
c. The Debtor’s Responding Appeal Record dated December 12, 2024, Supplementary Responding Appeal Record dated December 17, 2024 and Second Supplementary Responding Appeal Record dated January 29, 2025
d. The Debtor and the Trustee in Bankruptcy’s Responding Factums and Books of Authorities

[31] For the December 9, 2024 scheduling conference Zitella uploaded onto Case Center a 1,770-page PDF titled "Compendium of Majority Secured Creditor" (a title that he identifies himself by despite the fact that the Trustee disallowed Zitella's original proof of claim as a secured creditor and he did not oppose the disallowance). That compendium included material that Zitella claimed had been before the court on other appearances (prior to the July 31, 2024 motion) that he wished to refer to on the appeal. It was explained to him that only the material that was before the court on July 31, 2024 could be included in the Appeal Record.

[32] In the court's December 9, 2024 scheduling endorsement, counsel for the Debtor was directed to prepare and deliver and upload onto Case Center by December 17, 2024 a responding record that included all of the material that was before the court below so that there was a proper Appeal Record before this court. That was finalized based on the record as described in the preambles to the October 31, 2024 Judgment that Rappos A.J. settled and signed on December 16, 2024. Zitella raised complaints about the manner and timing of the Judgment being settled which were addressed in subsequent case conferences, prior to the appeal hearing.

[33] Counsel for the Bankrupt confirmed that all documents which were before Rappos A.J. at the July 31, 2024 hearing were included in the more than 1,200 pages of materials comprising the Debtor's Responding Records.

[34] An appeal from an order of the Registrar in Bankruptcy is a true appeal and not a hearing de novo. As a result, the only proper evidence to be considered on the appeal is the evidence that was before the Registrar in Bankruptcy.

[35] Zitella purports to raise issues in this appeal based on documents that were not in any motion record or before Rappos A.J. at the July 31, 2024 hearing. In order to adduce fresh evidence (such as anything contained in Zitella's compendium filed for the December 9, 2024 scheduling conference that was not contained in record for the July 31, 2024 hearing), an appellant must satisfy the requirements for the admission of such evidence: see L.W. Houlden, G.B. Morawetz & Janis Sarra, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law of Canada, 4th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2009), at p. 8-154. The test for adducing fresh evidence on appeal is set out in Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759, p. 775. Fresh evidence is only admitted on an appeal in exceptional circumstances: see Cockfield Brown Inc. (Trustee of) v. Réseau de television TVA Inc..

[36] Leave was not sought by Zitella to file fresh evidence on the appeal, nor would it have been granted on the record before the court. No explanation was provided by Zitella as to why the additional materials, at least some of which he himself asserts existed and were in the record of the bankruptcy proceeding before July 31, 2024 (some dating back to 2021), were not put before the court by him on July 31, 2024.

b) No Grounds for Appeal

[37] The Bankrupt and the Trustee argue that no valid, arguable, discernable, tenable or viable grounds for appeal have been specified in the Notice of Appeal, contrary to the requirements of Rule 30 of the BIA Rules.

[38] Zitella’s Notice of Appeal and Appeal Factum assert:

a) that it was an error for Rappos A.J. not to consider material that was filed in the bankruptcy court proceedings prior to the hearing on July 31, 2024, but that were not filed in the record for that motion even after Zitella had been clearly directed by Rappos A.J. that he needed to put all materials before the court that he wanted the court to consider and was given a clear deadline for so doing;
b) breaches of the BIA by the Trustee and other professionals in relation to alleged criminal and fraudulent conduct (on a generous reading, for the same failure to put the previously filed materials said to disclose alleged criminal and fraudulent conduct before the court on July 31, 2024 in his absence when he himself chose not to appear or file those materials); and
c) breaches of the rules of professional conduct against the lawyers and former lawyers involved in this bankruptcy proceeding, in relation to that same alleged criminal and fraudulent conduct (on a generous reading, for the same alleged failure by them to bring those previously filed materials to the attention of the court on that motion).

[39] Zitella's references in his Notice of Appeal to the penalty (offence) provisions contained in Part VIII of the BIA (particularly ss. 2.02(1), 2.02(1)(h), 2.05(1), (2), (3), (4), 206(1)) and s. 3.2-7 of the "Upper Canada Law Society Code of Ethics" are broad and untethered to any findings or conclusions contained in the Decision and the Judgment appealed from. No connection is made between anything that was done, or not done, in contravention of these provisions that had any bearing on the Decision.

[40] Zitella's absence from the July 31, 2024 hearing is not raised as a ground for appeal. That is consistent with the fact that there were many case conferences leading up to that hearing in which Zitella was told by Rappos A.J. what the deadlines were for filing and was told that the hearing would proceed that day, regardless of his stated intention not to appear or respond (for example, in the unreported endorsement of the June 28, 2024 case conference).

[41] Zitella's Notice of Appeal does not set out any valid, arguable, discernable, tenable, or viable grounds for appeal that relate in any way to the findings of fact, fact and law, or law, in the Decision or the Judgment. That would be another reason to strike the Notice of Appeal, but would also be a sufficient basis upon which to dismiss the appeal. Further and in any event, none of the grounds of appeal indicated in the Notice of Appeal, even on a generous reading, are sufficient for Zitella to succeed on the appeal.

c) Standard of Review on Appeal

[42] To succeed on this appeal, Zitella must establish, based only on the evidence that was before the court on July 31, 2024, that Rappos A.J. erred in principle, erred in law or failed to take into account a proper factor or took into account an improper factor that demonstrably led to a wrong conclusion: Re Saban, 2012 ONSC 6700, para. 5; see also Jefflin Investments Ltd. v. Charendoff, 2010 ONSC 2259, para. 25; see also Hughes (Re), 2017 ONSC 2421, paras. 16-17.

[43] Absent a manifest error, the court should not substitute its decision for that of the Registrar in Bankruptcy unless the earlier decision is based on wrong principles or unless it is wrongful in that sufficient weight had not been given to the relevant considerations: LaHave Equipment Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2007 NSSC 381, para. 7.

[44] All findings of fact by the Registrar in Bankruptcy are deserving of deference unless it is demonstrated that he made a "palpable and overriding error". Questions of law and matters of principle are reviewed on the standard of correctness. The standard on mixed questions of fact and law lies along the spectrum. At one end, the palpable and overriding error standard applies to questions that primarily involve fact-finding or the making of factual inferences. At the other end, where there is an error in characterizing or considering the proper legal standard to be applied, or where there is an extricable error of law, the standard is correctness: Murphy v. Sally Creek Environs Corporation, 2010 ONCA 312, para. 68; see also Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33.

d) No Identified or Discernable Errors

[45] The Decision was based on findings of fact or mixed fact and law (that Zitella was not acting in good faith) and an exercise of discretion under s. 4.2 of the BIA.

[46] Zitella has not attempted to identify in his Notice of Appeal or Appeal Factum any palpable and overriding or manifest errors, or extricable errors of law or principle or failures to take into account any proper factor or taking into account any improper factor in the Decision. Nor are any such errors apparent on the face of the Decision. Rather, Zitella seeks to challenge the entirety of the Decision because of its failure to consider materials that were not properly before the court below.

[47] The court and the respondents are not required to look through the Decision to find possible errors when there are no such manifest errors apparent on the face of the Decision. To the contrary, the findings regarding Zitella's failure to act in good faith in this bankruptcy proceeding, contrary to s. 4.2 of the BIA, and Rappos A.J.’s Decision to expunge Zitella's proof of claim and notice of objection in the bankruptcy as a result were well explained and reasonably supported in the record exceeding 1,200 pages and in the 56-paragraph decision.

[48] The Decision carefully and comprehensively considered the evidence presented regarding Zitella's behaviour and conduct and provided a thorough analysis of s. 4.2(1) of the BIA and the good faith requirement. The circumstances of this case, and Zitella's persistent pattern of abusive and improper conduct throughout these bankruptcy proceedings, appear to me to be precisely the type of circumstances that s. 4.2 of the BIA was intended to apply to. I find no error in any finding of fact, mixed fact and law, or application of any legal principles in the Decision. This court should afford deference to Rappos A.J. on the discretionary decision to expunge the proof of claim and notice of objection.

[49] The judgment that Zitella seeks in his Notice of Appeal, awarding him the OPTRUST PENSION, does not arise out of the Decision or any issue raised or considered by the court below.

Costs of the Appeal and the Motion to Strike the Appeal

[50] Paragraph 25 of the Decision makes reference to a conversation between counsel for the Bankrupt and Zitella earlier in the proceeding in which Zitella declared that he had "won" since he had cost the Bankrupt at least $150,000 in professional fees. The costs outline of the Bankrupt’s counsel in connection with the July 31, 2024 hearing indicated legal fees of over $140,000 on the highest scale, in large measure attributed to the manner in which Zitella has conducted himself. These costs that the Bankrupt has incurred are part of the casualties of Zitella's self-declared war of attrition. Rappos A.J. will make the decision about the costs of the motions he heard.

[51] In terms of this appeal and her Motion to Strike, both of which she succeeded on, the Bankrupt seeks full indemnity costs in the all-inclusive amount of $29,102.90. In addition to the conduct of Zitella which has persisted throughout this appeal, further grounds for awarding this highest scale of costs include that unfounded and seemingly irrelevant allegations of fraud and wrongdoing, including criminal wrongdoing, are made in the Notice of Appeal against court officers and legal professionals.

[52] For the same reasons, the Trustee seeks its full indemnity costs of this appeal in the all-inclusive amount of $10,737.82.

[53] In the exercise of my discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and having regard to the relevant factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including those referred to in this endorsement and in the costs outlines of the respondents, I find that this is a proper case in which to award the respondents their full indemnity costs, payable to each of them by Zitella forthwith. Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, that affords him 30 days within which to pay these costs.

Contempt and Ongoing Rule 2.1 Process

[54] There are two other aspects of Zitella's conduct that have arisen in the context of these appeal proceedings that, while not directly relevant to the outcome of the appeal, raise important considerations that may be separately addressed.

[55] The court's February 5, 2025 endorsement stated as follows (at paragraph 7):

Mr. Zitella's January 29, 2025 email correspondence indicates that he is in clear violation of the prior directives of this court and s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act. As a reminder, the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction of the Superior Court of Justice states in s.101 that: Anyone who uses an electronic device in a manner that is inconsistent with this section, any orders of the presiding judge or that the presiding judge determines to be unacceptable may be: (a) subject to prosecution for breaches of s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act, a citation and prosecution for contempt of court, or prosecution for other offences.

[56] The Trustee urges the court to cite Zitella for contempt of court.

[57] Zitella has already been found to be in clear violation of s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act based on his own admission in his January 29, 2025 email that makes it clear that he had used, and planned to continue to use, an electronic device in a manner inconsistent with the statutory prohibition and inconsistent with prior court orders and directions advising him of the prohibition against so doing. I find his recordings of prior virtual court proceedings to be an unacceptable and unlawful breach of s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act. Any such continued conduct could attract a citation for contempt and could lead to prosecution for breaches of s. 136 of the Courts of Justice Act. This should serve as both a further warning to Mr. Zitella and a deterrent against any future recording of court proceedings by him.

[58] Zitella is also the subject of Rule 2.1 notices. Those notices relate to other proceedings he has attempted to initiate, aside from this appeal. The determinations under Rule 2.1 have been made separately in accordance with the summary process provided for under that Rule and are the subject of a separate endorsement also dated February 28, 2025. See Gregoriou (Re), 2025 ONSC 1349.

Kimmel J.
Date: 2025-02-28