SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

COMMERCIAL LIST

RE: Albert Jones and Katharina Gross, Plaintiffs

AND:

Enzo Mizzi also known as Emanual Mizzi and Emanual Mizzi, Emanuele Mizzi, Megaly Bianchini, Mary Campisi, Ron Brown, Brown Peck and Lubelsky LLP, 1543333 Ontario Ltd. and 1544274 Ontario Limited, Defendants

BEFORE: D. M. Brown J.

COUNSEL: A. Gaertner, for the Plaintiffs

A. Riswick, for Mary Campisi

W. E. Pepall, for the Ron Brown and Brown Peck and Lubelsky LLP

J. Binavince, for Enzo and Emanuel Rizzi

CASE CONFERENCE DATE: March 24, 2014

case conference memorandum no. 1

[1] I thank counsel for filing the pleadings brief as well as short overviews of their clients’ positions on next steps.

[2] Although the plaintiffs expressed a desire to move to strike out certain counterclaims, and although the Rizzi defendants expressed a desire to move for a further and better affidavit of documents, I declined to schedule such motions. The former issue can be addressed by questioning on discoveries. The latter issue spawned a discussion amongst counsel on production issues. The main issue concerned productions by the solicitor, Brown, of certain transaction records. The client, the plaintiff, indicated it would waive privilege. Therefore the basis now exists for counsel to work out a practical, cost-effective way to secure and exchange the relevant documents.

[3] Also, counsel for Rizzi advised that his clients’ response to demand for particulars would be served by this Friday and his clients were continuing to put together their productions.

[4] I therefore expect counsel to work out the remaining production issues and for productions to have been disclosed and exchanged by the end of April.

[5] Counsel also agreed to discuss and agree upon a protocol to enable the inspection of properties (and relevant documents) in order for the plaintiffs’ expert to prepare a valuation report.

[6] The plaintiffs advised that they expect to serve the defendant, Megaly Bianchini, later this week.

[7] The next case conference will be held on Thursday, May 1, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. At that time counsel shall advise on the status of productions and the schedule the parties have worked out for examinations for discovery. I would appreciate receiving, no later than 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 29, 2014, a short letter from counsel outlining where those two matters stand and identifying any other issues counsel wish to raise at the case conference.

D. M. Brown J.

Date: March 24, 2014