Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-513166 DATE: 20160819 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Danny Nitsopoulos, Peter Nitsopoulos and Louis Tzogas, Plaintiffs AND: Tom Nitsopoulos, Louie Kereakou, Mike Nitchov, Tommy Cook’s Ltd, Boy on a Dolphin Ltd., 661248 Ontario Inc., Met-Star Holdings Limited, Villa Nova Restaurant Limited and N.T.K. Investments Ltd., Defendants

BEFORE: S. F. Dunphy, J.

COUNSEL: J. Van Wiechen, for the Plaintiffs R. B. Moldaver, Q.C., for the Defendant Louie Kereakou N. Choudury, for the Defendants Tom Nitsopoulos and Mike Nitchov G. Dimitriou, for the Defendant Met-Star Holdings Limited

HEARD: August 18, 2016

Case Conference Endorsement

The following is a summary of the conclusions reached at our initial case conference convened before me pursuant to the direction of McEwen J.:

[1] The parties shall prepare a draft consent order converting this application into an action along the general lines that:

a. Pleadings shall be filed to clarify the legal issues (but need not necessarily recite all of the evidence set forth in the affidavits at length);

b. Affidavits and cross-examinations to date (and in the process of being completed) shall stand in the stead of examinations for discovery;

c. While documentary production is already contained in the various affidavits and exhibits already delivered/exchanged, each party will prepare an affidavit of documents certifying that there are no other relevant documents in their power, possession or control (there should be no need to list the documents already made exhibits to affidavits or cross-examinations for this purpose); and

d. A case timetable for the completion of pleadings and remaining cross-examinations and exchange of affidavits of documents shall be prepared.

[2] It is my expectation that this case can be made ready for pre-trial by November or early December given progress made to date.

[3] Responding parties have indicated some desire to bring a summary judgment motion raising a limitation issue impacting some but not all of the claims advanced by the applicants. The case timetable should build in a deadline for deciding whether such motion will be brought. In considering the issue, respondents should assess whether it is reasonably expected that such a motion offers a reasonable prospect of substantially shortening/simplifying a trial and whether there is a significant risk of introducing unnecessary delay given the prospect of a trial held in under one year on all issues.

[4] The consent order should be delivered to my attention as soon as it is ready. If there is difficulty in getting the order finalized, an in person or telephone case conference may be arranged through my assistant on most days that I am sitting at 4:30 pm.

[5] A case conference should be re-convened before me when the case is ready to be set down for trial (target date: late November).

S. F. Dunphy, J. Date: August 19, 2016