Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-23-00700626-0000
Date: 2025-05-26
Court: Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Plaintiffs (Moving Parties):
Martin Z. Rosenbaum and Martin Z. Rosenbaum Law Professional Corporation

Defendants:
Vanessa Ibe, Rosenbaum & Ibe LLP, Lise Varrette, Annie Yilmaz, Aykut Yilmaz, John Barroso, Stiffra Armamento, David Guy, Mekker Construction Ltd., Levante Mekker, Eszter Mekker, Dorothy Dodds, Charlotte Dugue, Robin Dussart, Matthew Garrett, Gabriella Moscatello, Evan Braun, Blair Laursen, June Liddell, 2695026 Ontario Corp., Tadeo Sanchez, 2036133 Ontario Ltd., 2505619 Ontario Inc., 2749612 Ontario Inc., Alex Aselstyne, 1198380 Ontario Limited, Albion Holdings Ltd., Michael Amson, Angelo Arvanitakis, Available Roofing and Remodeling Inc., Marc Brathwaite, Suzanne Clarke, BHD Investments Inc., George Dreher, Luce Boire, Carolyn Bowman, Stephen Bowman, James Byers, 1173267 Ontario Inc., 1419082 Ontario Inc., Ramona Butt, Michael Cain, Centrotex Foreign Trade Company Limited, Dougal Clark, Margaret Stuart, Charles Cohen, Caitlin Connelly, Trevor William Tomkins, Custom-Pak Inc., Art Dicecco, 2489297 Ontario Inc., DMD Building Systems Corp., Glenn Dodds, Thomas Douglas, Adam Dwek, Fernando Faria, Federacion de Agroexportadores de Honduras, Shane Foran, Fitzroy Fuller, Chad Geense, Seyedmohammadali Ghazitabatabai, Aaron Goodman, Dan Grigorayeb, Sandeep Gupta, Greg Watkinson, Edy Lorena Cruz-Fuentes, Keith Hall, Ana Harriott, Brad Hillis, Misti Holmes, Kevin Holmes, Howar Equipment Inc., Nancy Iadeluca, IFG International Financial Group, Adil Khalfan, Kingfisher Build Ltd., Jordon Kwan, Estate of Debra Elaine Lue by Suzanne Patricia Chen Estate Trustee, 2733214 Ontario Inc., Suhrob Badirov, Lindsey Labow, Tina Larsen, Adrian Lee, Maison de la France, Morogel Maroge, Shawn Melo, Denna Mezuman, Michael Shean, 2044819 Ontario Ltd., Mousi Brothers Inc., Cai Han Li, Neurose Corporation, North American Gateway, Northwest Precision Ltd., Ornella Parker, Dwight Pollonais, Proteck Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc., Laura Pryse, Shamin Rahim, Mario Rapino, Edward Roberts, Robros Investments Inc., Loudaniel Holdings Inc., Patric Sacdalan, Maziar Sahraei, Manoj Sharma, Signum Wireless Corp., SDM Construction Inc., Davide Succurro, Giovanna Succurro, Kaitlyn Swartz, Tabangi Electronics Ltd., Francesco Tarantino, 2751304 Ontario Corporation o/a Tile Studio, Jonathan To, Crystal Lee, Trifield Construction Management Corp., Krystyn Turco, Kayla Turco, Kurtis Van Keulen, Shannon Wainman, Karen Washington, William Wernicke, Lawrence Weisbrod, Alan Weisbrod, Calvin White, Lorna White, Colin White, Edward Wong, Elizabeth Zalan, Cyrus Orden, Olga Zalan, and Sanjay Dubey

Before: Lorne Brownstone

Counsel:

• William M. Sharpe, for the Plaintiffs
• Cherif Saleh, for Neurose Corporation
• Gavin Tighe, for LAWPRO
• Judy Hamilton, for Mekker Construction Ltd., Eszter Mekker and Levante Mekker
• David Guy, appearing in person

Heard: 2025-05-05

Endorsement

Overview

[1] Martin Rosenbaum and Vanessa Ibe were law partners, practicing as Rosenbaum & Ibe LLP (“the Firm”). In about August 2022, Mr. Rosenbaum discovered that Ms. Ibe had misappropriated and misapplied monies in the Firm’s mixed trust account.

[2] Mr. Rosenbaum reported to LAWPRO. He engaged a forensic bookkeeper and forensic auditor to analyze the records of the Firm and report on Ms. Ibe’s financial conduct. The bookkeeper and auditor prepared a forensic review dated March 23, 2023.

[3] As a result of Ms. Ibe’s actions, clients of the Firm started five actions against Ms. Ibe and the Firm (the negligence actions)[^1].

[4] Between December 2022 and December 2023, Mr. Rosenbaum and his professional law corporation issued six actions against some or all of Ms. Ibe, the Firm[^2], and client and nonclient recipients of wrongfully misapplied trust funds[^3].

[5] In CV-23-00700626-0000, Mr. Rosenbaum named all identified remaining client beneficiaries of Rosenbaum & Ibe LLP's mixed trust account. There are 136 defendants named in this action.

[6] On June 12, 2024, I was assigned as case management judge for these 11 actions. LAWPRO, while not a party to the case managed actions, attended, sought, and was granted permission to address the court at the first case conference and the two that followed (September 13, November 14, and December 11, 2024).

[7] Mr. Rosenbaum moves for an order that I recuse myself as case management judge based on a reasonable apprehension of bias, relating to my management of LAWPRO’s participation in the matter while it is not a party. Further details of the basis for the recusal motion are provided below.

[8] Neurose Corporation, a defendant, supports Mr. Rosenbaum’s motion. It filed no materials and made no submissions.

[9] LAWPRO, the Mekker parties[^4], and David Guy oppose Mr. Rosenbaum’s position. The rest of the parties take no position.

Background

The Litigation and the Case Conferences

[10] Mr. Rosenbaum is of the view that he has an obligation as trustee for the client beneficiaries of the Firm’s trust account to account for, protect and recover funds. Mr. Rosenbaum refers to these as the “protective actions” or the “recovery actions”. He asked LAWPRO to commence these actions. LAWPRO declined and told him he was doing so at his own expense and risk.

[11] There are about 175 parties to the case-managed files. Many of the parties are victims of Ms. Ibe’s fraud. Some of them are owed money by the Firm.

[12] LAWPRO has defended the negligence actions on behalf of Mr. Rosenbaum, Ms. Ibe, and Rosenbaum and Ibe, but told Mr. Rosenbaum from the outset that the actions he commenced were being maintained solely at his risk and expense. Mr. Rosenbaum makes no complaint or allegations in respect of the court’s interactions with the LAWPRO counsel who is defending Mr. Rosenbaum in the negligence action.

[13] In addition to LAWPRO counsel who are acting in defence of the negligence actions, Mr. Tighe attended the first case conference on behalf of LAWPRO “at large” on September 13, 2024, the first available date counsel and the parties were able to attend a conference. It is the court’s interactions with Mr. Tighe that form the bases of Mr. Rosenbaum’s motion.

[14] In advance of the first case conference, I asked parties to provide me with a single page memo advising of their hoped-for outcome of the conference. Mr. Rosenbaum wished to timetable various litigation steps. Many clients of the Firm wrote memoranda objecting to incurring legal fees to defend an action when they are named as victims and asking to be let out of the actions. A sample memorandum states: “It is both counterintuitive and wrong that we, [AB] and [CD], be incurring legal fees to defend an action where we are named as victim trust account holders. Furthermore, it is disproportionate for the Victim Trust Account Holders Defendants to be put to the time and expense of participating in these actions, either procedurally, or substantively.” At least one memorandum asked the court to dismiss the claim under rule 2.1. Another stated “We are overwhelmed by the number of documents sent to our residence and the daunting task of representing ourselves as ‘defendants’ when we have done nothing but have our savings taken from us.”

[15] At the first conference, counsel for LAWPRO, Mr. Tighe, asked that the court hear from him, and I acceded to that request. He described LAWPRO as the common denominator in many of the claims and advised that it had been working through coverage issues. LAWPRO had been trying to determine the number and nature of the claims, settle claims that could be settled and determine how much coverage was available. Mr. Tighe advised that there were significant policy amounts available. He advised that LAWPRO was close to resolving some of the claims and expressed concern from the outset that the policy limits decrease with costs, so that minimizing costs, maximizing efficiency, and having this dealt with under the terms of the policy would benefit everyone. Mr. Tighe proposed treating the matter as though it were stayed for 60 days to enable LAWPRO to continue this work to see if that could result in fewer people being involved in the litigation.

[16] Mr. Rosenbaum’s counsel stated they sought to accomplish many of the same goals as Mr. Tighe had mentioned but had a different approach to doing so. They agreed that the litigation needed to move forward with fewer people. They proposed that the parties participate in a submission of rights process as contemplated in the estates rule 75.07 and form 75.10.

[17] The court also heard submissions from individual former clients of the Firm who had been named as parties to the litigation. They spoke against having to participate in any way, including providing a submission of rights and returning for further conferences. They were spending more on counsel to attend the case conference and to communicate with Mr. Rosenbaum’s counsel than was owed to them by the Firm. They sought to be released from the litigation. Some victims expressed difficulties getting responses from Mr. Rosenbaum’s counsel in their previous efforts to deal with the matter. Several expressed that they had asked and were not aware of what the audit revealed them to be owed.

[18] Mr. Rosenbaum’s counsel stated he could not advise the victims what they were owed, because the trust ledger was privileged.

[19] The court expressed its view that practicality had to be brought to bear on the litigation and it needed to be streamlined. I expressed that the goals before the next conference were to bring order to the proceedings by, in part, releasing parties who did not need to be there. I required Mr. Rosenbaum’s counsel to advise the victim trust account holders what the report indicates they are owed. Those parties could decide whether they wished to be released from the litigation if they chose not to spend money to try to retrieve very insignificant amounts.

[20] By the next case conference on November 14, 2024, only 14 discontinuances and 2 dismissals had been agreed to. Some parties were told that the plaintiffs were not at liberty to tell them how much money was at issue because of privilege issues. The court was also advised that not all parties had received the required letters.

[21] Mr. Tighe advised the court that there appears to be no gap in coverage. He advised it would assist LAWPRO if it could see the forensic audit. Mr. Sharpe advised the audit had been previously provided to LAWPRO, but I required that it be provided again.

[22] Again, I advised that the first order of operations was informing parties what they had at stake in the litigation so they could make informed decisions about whether to seek to be let out of the claims. This would free the victims from the proceedings and allow remaining claims to be streamlined. I set the next case conference for December 11, 2024, at which time I expected that more people would be released from the litigation.

[23] By the December 15 case conference, very few people had been released from the claims. Mr. Sharpe on behalf of Mr. Rosenbaum advised the court that 115 out of 130 victim trust account holders remained as defendants in the actions. Mr. Rosenbaum’s case conference memorandum asked that I not hear from LAWPRO concerning defence and repair. Victims of the fraud who were named as defendants were still appearing and were voicing concerns about not receiving the required correspondence, one describing it as being engaged in “a nightmare”.

[24] LAWPRO had performed an analysis, but its analysis differed from Mr. Sharpe’s. According to LAWPRO, Mr. Sharpe’s numbers in the notice letters, pleadings, and forensic accounting were not consistent with one another or with LAWPRO’s figures. Mr. Sharpe had just received Mr. Tighe’s correspondence the evening before the case conference. I inquired of Mr. Sharpe as to how long he needed to respond to LAWPRO’s analysis and he advised that this was a coverage issue, not properly before the court. LAWPRO responded that it was not certain what was meant by this being a coverage issue, but that LAWPRO was trying to get an accurate picture of the situation. Decisions could then be made, once it knew it was basing its decisions on an accurate foundation. I then asked for the analysis to be sent to me, so I too could get an accurate picture of the situation. I also asked Mr. Sharpe to make submissions on why the victims should not have the claim dismissed or stayed under rule 2.1. I gave him five days to respond with five pages of submissions. He subsequently wrote the court that I had not given him the required length of time or pages under rule 2.1. I granted more time and a greater length of submissions in accordance with the rule.

[25] Mr. Sharpe provided submissions and advised that he wished to bring this motion for recusal, so the case conference set for January 15, 2025, was used to timetable this motion. Unfortunately the motion had to be rescheduled to a later date due to court scheduling.

New/Additional Litigation

[26] On January 22, 2025, LAWPRO learned that Mr. Rosenbaum and his professional corporation had issued a notice of action against LAWPRO on August 9, 2024. LAWPRO learned of this proceeding for the first time when served with the notice of action and statement of claim on January 22, 2025.

[27] The claim seeks declarations that LAWPRO must defend and indemnify Mr. Rosenbaum and his professional corporation for LAWPRO’s failure to effect repair and seeks recovery of expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in the recovery actions.

[28] In January 2025, Mr. Rosenbaum’s counsel advised LAWPRO that he had received instructions to start an application against both the LSO and LAWPRO. The draft application seeks, among other things, an order that the LSO or LAWPRO be substituted as "replacement trustees and Plaintiff parties" in the recovery actions and for an order directing the LSO to pay, from the Firm’s trust account, fees that Mr. Rosenbaum and his professional corporation had paid or owed to Mr. Sharpe and his other personal counsel in the recovery actions.

[29] According to paragraph 2(m) of the draft notice of application, Mr. Rosenbaum and his corporation have incurred over $440,000 in fees, expenses, disbursements and HST.

The Available Funds

[30] The available limits of the applicable primary and excess LAWPRO policies are $1,000,000.00 and $4,000,000.00, respectively, for a total of $5 million, which limits are eroded by investigation and defence costs, as well as indemnity and repair payments. That is, under the terms of the policies, all legal costs, including the costs of investigating, defending, and repairing the multiple claims and proceedings, including those commenced by Mr. Rosenbaum against Ms. Ibe, the Firm, and others, are subtracted from the available limits under the applicable policies.

[31] The LSO is currently holding in trust the funds that remained in the Firm's trust account at the time the Firm was dissolved in or around August of 2022, in the amount of $674,592.00.

Positions of the Parties

[32] Mr. Rosenbaum alleges that the court has permitted LAWPRO to participate beyond the scope that should be permitted for an amicus, has allowed the case management process to be “overtaken by coverage issues”, has facilitated LAWPRO’s insurance investigation, offending the rule that coverage issues should be determined separately from liability, and has preferred the interests of LAWPRO to that of Mr. Rosenbaum.

[33] Mr. Rosenbaum argues that amicus has a limited role, and, relying on R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20, paras. 37, 38, 41, and 42, cautions against amicus assuming the powers and duties of counsel for a party. He argues that an intervener who participates as a friend of the court must take the record as it exists: Tadros v. Peel Regional Police Service, 2008 ONCA 775, para. 5. The order appointing amicus should be clear, detailed, and precise: Morwald-Benevides v. Benevides, 2019 ONCA 1023, para. 39.

[34] Mr. Rosenbaum argues that a court must avoid findings related to insurance coverage that would compromise or affect the underlying litigation. The duty to indemnify is to be determined at the end of litigation, not prematurely. For this he relies on cases about determining whether a duty to defend exists: Monenco Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., 2001 SCC 49, para. 37; Halifax Insurance Co. of Canada v. Innopex Ltd., paras. 37-38; Liardi v. Riotrin Properties (Kingston) Inc. et al & Zurich Ins. Co., 2013 ONSC 7544, para. 12.

[35] I note that Mr. Rosenbaum agreed that LAWPRO should participate in this motion, given that its conduct was at issue.

[36] Mr. Tighe on behalf of LAWPRO argues that permitting a lawyer to attend a case conference and to make submissions as an amicus, quasi-amicus or on behalf of a party who has an interest in the proceedings is insufficient to meet the high threshold for showing a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court is entitled to control its own process and to determine what information the court needs to manage the issues before it. The precise role for amicus is adaptable and depends on the particular needs in a particular case: Kahsai at para. 38. An amicus need not be impartial, objective, or disinterested. Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 998, para. 11. Here, LAWPRO’s interest is the efficient processing of the claims to the benefit of the insureds. In this case, given the large number of parties and the limited assets available for recovery, the need for an expeditious and cost-effective resolution is acute.

[37] Mr. Tighe states he is seeking to ensure the court is not left with only one side of the argument with respect to the alleged bias, a proper role for amicus. Mr. Tighe argues that no substantive relief was sought by or granted to LAWPRO at any case conference. Rather, on behalf of LAWPRO he provided the court with an overview of the status of the litigation and identified matters that might be resolved, in whole or in part. No defence or indemnity obligations were raised or determined. Attempts at resolution do not prejudice the insured. The court is entitled to, and must, control its own process.

[38] LAWPRO disputes that coverage issues overtook the case conferences. Rather the conferences were devoted to the actions in which Mr. Rosenbaum is a plaintiff, and the court’s desire to narrow the number of defendants in those actions. Issues of coverage were not discussed or determined. The court was not asked to, and did not, determine any issues of coverage or defence obligations.

[39] The Metzkers argue against the recusal for many of the reasons advanced by LAWPRO. In addition, they argue that the plaintiffs are shopping for a preferred judge who will agree to their litigation strategy, and that further delay would be counterproductive and prejudicial to the other parties. The judicial prodding has been necessary and not a demonstration of bias.

[40] Mr. Guy argues against the motion, and against further delay in the proceedings that he states is further prejudicing him, when he is already a victim of fraud.

Law and Analysis

[41] Litigants are entitled to appear before an impartial judicial officer. It is important that justice be administered impartially. Bias is a state of mind that renders a judicial officer unable to exercise her functions impartially: R. v. S. (R.D.), para. 106.

[42] The test is whether an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, having thought the matter through, would conclude that a decision-maker, consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly: Yukon Francophone School Board, Education Area #23 v. Yukon (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 25, para. 20, citing Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board.

[43] The adjudicative process must be fair, and must appear to be fair.

[44] However, there is a high presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality. A person seeking relief based on a reasonable apprehension of bias must rebut that presumption with cogent evidence that shows that a reasonable person apprised of the relevant circumstances would conclude the judge had failed to decide the issues impartially and independently: R. v. Montoya, 2015 ONCA 786, para. 9, citing Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, 2013 SCC 30, para. 22. Bias is to be established on a balance of probabilities.

[45] A judge should disqualify herself if there is any air of reality to a bias claim. However, judges must be careful not to step aside by yielding to an unsubstantiated recusal demand: Beard Winter LLP v. Shekhdar, 2016 ONCA 493, para. 10.

[46] The test is more stringent in the case management context, where there is close interaction and some informality between parties, counsel, and judicial officers: Fatahi-Ghandehari v. Wilson, 2019 ONSC 3584, para. 14; Cosentino v. Dominaco Developments Inc., 2018 ONSC 4092, para. 47. Case management involves some "judicial squeezing", which does not amount to bias: CN v. Holmes, 2011 ONSC 4837, para. 59.

[47] I find that a reasonably informed person would not conclude that I have failed to decide the issues impartially and independently, or that I, consciously or unconsciously, would not decide future issues fairly.

[48] I explain my conclusion as follows.

[49] The record reveals that the court has been focused on streamlining the litigation which is unmanageable and unwieldy. I had hoped to gain efficiencies by having victims of the fraud released from the litigation. That was my first focus. I determined that LAWPRO, as, in Mr. Tighe’s words, the common denominator to the proceedings, could provide assistance to the court in managing this unusual litigation. The court, LAWPRO, and Mr. Rosenbaum’s counsel all agreed at the outset that efficiencies were needed, and that a streamlined process for dealing with the victims of the fraud was required. Mr. Rosenbaum’s proposed process was using an estates procedure. Even if such a process were available to the court, I did not wish to burden the victims with more work, nor was it possible for many of them to provide a form 75.10 given that they had not been advised of their financial position vis-à-vis the Firm’s trust account. I chose another avenue to seek to streamline the litigation. That does not demonstrate a closed mind, but a difference in view of the appropriate procedure to achieve an end that everyone agreed was required.

[50] Nor have I dealt with any coverage issues. The discussions about coverage and policy limits have occurred in the context of whether there was likely to be a shortfall in the event the claims were to be processed through LAWPRO in the usual way. I am not conflating coverage issues – there are no coverage issues before me. I am, however, sensitive to LAWPRO’s desire to ensure that funds that are available go to the victims of Ms. Ibe’s fraud. I am also sensitive to the concerns of victims that they are now having to spend more money to appear and potentially defend litigation in what must be referred to as unusual proceedings.

[51] Mr. Rosenbaum complains that when Mr. Tighe said he had never seen a case like this I responded “me neither” without giving Mr. Rosenbaum an opportunity to make contrary submissions. Yet when this motion was heard some eight months later, he had not brought forward any cases to contradict these statements and to support this manner of proceeding. When asked at the return of this motion whether he was aware of any authority in which all beneficiaries of a lawyer's trust account have been joined as defendants where fraud or misconduct was alleged against the lawyer, Mr. Sharpe indicated he did not have any such case but would provide it to the court if he found it. After the hearing of the motion he advised that he was unable to locate such an authority, but had located a decision where all beneficiaries of a family trust were joined as defendants where malfeasance was alleged against the trustee: Kaplan v. Heber, 2024 ONSC 1445. There, Faieta J. concluded that in the context of a private trust case, rule 9.01(2)(d) required the parties to be added.

[52] It is difficult to see the prejudice or impropriety arising from my agreement with Mr. Tighe on this issue, when the plaintiff himself is also unaware of any case like the one at bar involving a lawyer. My statement was true then and remains true today.

[53] Case management is aimed at moving the matter forward in a timely and proportionate manner: Abrams v. Abrams, 2010 ONSC 2703, para. 65. Indeed, “[o]ne of the purposes of case management under Rule 77 and the broad powers given to judges under Rule 50.13(6) with respect to case conferences is ‘to prevent parties from taking technical positions that may have all kinds of good tactical reasons but which do not advance the resolution of the merits, are unhelpful, costly for the parties, or a waste of judicial resources’: see Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 2021 ONSC 3348, para. 9” (Lee v. Magna International Inc., 2021 ONSC 6764, para. 50). Suggesting that I ought to have required LAWPRO counsel to make a formal motion, on notice to other parties, to address the court as amicus, or that I should have issued a formal order enabling him to do so, is an example of a technical position that does not advance the objectives of case management or of timely and proportionate litigation.

[54] LAWPRO has had no direct interest in the litigation. There have been no interests of LAWPRO to prefer. My initial focus has been on the victims, not LAWPRO and not Mr. Rosenbaum. That does not demonstrate bias or a closed mind. It represents a desire to narrow the litigation so that it can move forward in an efficient way, and a desire to minimize expenditure on the part of victims. Indeed, Mr. Rosenbaum’s counsel at the first case conference professed to share these goals, if not the method of achieving them.

[55] I conclude that Mr. Rosenbaum is unhappy with the way that I am case managing the file. I have not acceded to his request in how to manage the victims, nor to his request to schedule further motions while so many victims remain parties and so little headway has been made on releasing victims. He is entitled to be unhappy. He may also believe I have made errors in my case management. But unhappiness and errors do not lead to a determination of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

[56] I find that Mr. Rosenbaum has not established bias or an apprehension of bias on a balance of probabilities.

Disposition

[57] The motion is dismissed without costs. This decision applies to all the case-managed actions, which are listed in footnotes 1 and 2.

[58] The parties shall attend on June 11, 2025, at 9:00 am for the next case conference. If that date is not possible for the parties, they shall communicate amongst themselves to select a 9:00 a.m. attendance date during the week of June 16, 2025, and provide it to my judicial assistant. If no new date is selected by June 6, 2025, the parties will be expected on June 11. Parties may provide very brief case memoranda in advance of the conference. They are expected to focus on moving the litigation ahead in a proportionate, streamlined, effective manner. They should expect to begin the conference with a status update on the removal of victims from the litigation.

Lorne Brownstone
Date: May 26, 2025

[^1]: Those claims are: Mesa et al. v. Ibe et al. CV-23-007110863-0000 (Toronto); Regina Mundi Corp v. Ibe et al. CV-23-00000555-0000 (Newmarket); Dubey v. Ibe et al. CV-23-00696597-0000 (Toronto); Sekhavati et al. v. Ibe et al. CV-22-00003230-0000 (Newmarket); and McCord et al. v. Ibe et al. CV-22-00003188-0000 (Newmarket); there is also a third-party claim in this last file: Braun et al v. Ibe et al. CV-22-00003188-00A1 (Newmarket)

[^2]: As LAWPRO points out, Mr. Rosenbaum is effectively suing himself when he sues the Firm.

[^3]: These actions are: Rosenbaum et al. v. Bornovolokov et al. (CV-22-00692240-0000) (Toronto); Rosenbaum v. Ibe et al CV-22-00692296-0000 (Toronto); Rosenbaum v. Ibe et al CV-23-00000614-0000 (Oshawa); Rosenbaum v. Ibe et al CV-23-00700570-0000 (Toronto); Rosenbaum v. Ibe et al CV-23-00700626-0000 (Toronto); Rosenbaum v. Ibe et al CV-23-007010639-0000 (Toronto)

[^4]: Mekker Construction Ltd., Eszter Mekker and Levante Mekker