SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

COMMERCIAL LIST

RE: Bank of Montreal, Plaintiff v. Mair Faibish et al., Defendants

AND:

RE: Brome Financial Corporation Inc., Plaintiff v. Bank of Montreal, Defendants

BEFORE: D. M. Brown J.

PRESENT: M. Mohamed and J. Woycheshyn, for the Plaintiff, Bank of Montreal

S. Erskine, for the defendants, Mair Faibish, and as agent for Renee Faibish and Libra Marketing Inc.

NOT PRESENT:

A. MacDonald, for the defendant, BDO Canada Limited

L. Brzezinski and J. Polyzogopoulos, for Brome Financial Corporation Inc.

R. Quance, for the defendants, Taragh Bracken and Tarbrac Holdings Inc.

M. Cooper, for the defendant, Bektrom Foods Inc.

S. Clements, for the defendants, Michael Falcone, Michael Falcone Professional Corporation and FalconeTurnerMoore LLP

H. Wright, for the defendant, Terry Mak

J. Zibarras, for Giuseppe Gatti

HEARD: June 26, 2014

case conference memorandum no. 8

I. Settlements

[1] Counsel advised that more settlements have been reached with various defendants, including BDO Canada Limited, Brome Financial Corporation Inc., Taragh Bracken, Tarbrac Holdings Inc., the Falcone defendants, Terry Mak and Giuseppe Gatti.

II. Expert reports

[2] The BMO delivered the report of its forensic accountant last year, and those who were entitled to file responding reports did not do so by the November, 2013 deadline. Ms. Erskine advised that she has no instructions on the issue of a responding expert report.

III. Discoveries

[3] Discoveries are complete. This matter is ready for its October trial date.

IV. E-trial plan

[4] As directed by the April 5, 2014 Case Conference Memorandum No. 7, the parties have agreed upon a plan to conduct the trial by way of an electronic hearing. That plan is set out in the June 16, 2014 letter of BMO’s counsel which is attached to this Memorandum. Ms. Ramsey, on behalf of Renee Faibish and Libra Marketing Inc., took no issue with the plan, but asserted that BMO should bear the initial cost of the infrastructure associated with the plan. BMO accepts that it will bear the initial cost. However, I order that the reasonable costs incurred by BMO in providing the infrastructure for the electronic hearing shall qualify as an allowable disbursement for the purpose of considering the costs of the trial, when that stage of the proceeding is finally reached.

V. Trial timetable

[5] Counsel submitted a proposed timetable for the trial which is attached. It appears that what was forecast to be a six-week trial may take no more than three weeks. I commend counsel for their co-operation in developing the timetable.

[6] Counsel shall contact Mr. DiPietro at the Commercial Office to arrange, through Newbould J., an attendance before the trial judge during the week of September 8, if possible, to have a pre-hearing discussion with the trial judge about administrative and other matters.

D. M. Brown J.

Date: June 27, 2014