Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-13-20004 Date: 2016-09-27 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Tremblar Building Supplies Ltd., Plaintiff And: 1839563 Ontario Limited, The Lighting Boutique Incorporated, Raymond Pittao, 538318 Ontario Ltd., Defendants

Before: Carey J.

Counsel: Steven Pickard, for the Plaintiff Michael J. Brzezinski, for the Defendants

Heard: September 27, 2016

Endorsement re motion to amend statement of claim

[1] I am satisfied that the relief sought should be granted notwithstanding that the plaintiff’s motion failed to request leave under r. 48.04 to bring this motion. I accept that this is a technical failure that I have jurisdiction to remedy by the blanket request in para. 5 of the motion. I further grant as a reasonable ancillary order to the order sought, an order that the plaintiff be permitted to question 391568 Ontario Ltd., its officers and directors following the amendment. I reject the argument that that the named defendants and the proposed defendant are prejudiced by any amendment at this stage. These are interrelated, closely held numbered corporations and even the principal behind them, Mr. Raymond Pittao, does not seem to have a clear understanding of their exact holdings. The material suggests, at the very least, that the named defendants and their counsel have always been aware of the ownership of all the property where The Lighting Boutique is erected and believed that it was up to the plaintiffs to figure out the complex maze of ownership. They say that their many refusals to questions, apparently designed to discover the ownership of the property, were properly asserted. Any answers from Mr. Pittao that suggested that all of the property at the Walker Road location was owned by the defendant 538318 Ontario Ltd. were too narrowly construed (p. 51, Motion Record, April 20, 2015, Q. 61 & 62).

[2] They see no contradiction between their objection on relevancy grounds to questions about what 391568 Ont. Ltd. owned and their motion of September 1, 2016 (pending), that among other requests, seek a summary judgment based on their assertion now that “the materials allegedly supplied by the plaintiff went to improve a building located substantially on a property owned by 391568 Ontario Limited” who are not a party to the action. With great respect, the materials on this motion satisfies me that The Lighting Boutique, its principals and their counsel have been involved in a lengthy game of “catch us if you can.”

[3] While not concluding that this was not necessarily within their rights, I am satisfied that there is no prejudice to any of the parties or to 391568 by permitting the amendments sought. The amendments are without prejudice to any argument at trial under the Limitations Act.

[4] Costs to the plaintiff fixed at $2,000, payable forthwith.

Original signed by Thomas J. Carey

Thomas J. Carey Justice

Date of Written Endorsement: September 27, 2016 Date of Transcribed Endorsement: September 29, 2016