Court File and Parties

CITATION: Frank Spataro v. Davis Drive Investments, 2017 ONSC 6492

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-534957

DATE: 2017-10-30

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Frank Spataro, Plaintiff

AND:

Davis Drive Investments Limited and YRCC698 and RMSCO Management Services Limited and New Market Group and Newmarket Plaza Limited and Deltera Inc. and Leo Delzotto and The Regional Municipality of York and Kiewit-Ellisdon, a Partnership, Defendants

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Firestone

COUNSEL: Darcy Romaine, for the Plaintiffs

Ashley Artopoulo for Davis Drive Investments Limited, New Market Plaza Limited, Deltera Inc. and Leo Delzotto

Jeffrey Pasternak for YRCC698 and RMSCO Management Services Limited and New Market Group

Daniel Fiorita for the Regional Municipality of York and Kiewit-Ellisdon, A Partnership

HEARD: In Writing

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This action was referred to me by the registrar’s office pursuant to Rule 2.1.01(7) following receipt of a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) by the defendants New Market Plaza Limited, Deltera Inc., and Leo Delzotto collectively referred to as “the defendants”.

[2] In his statement of claim (“claim”) the plaintiff alleges that he was walking on or around 130 and 200 Davis Drive, Newmarket, Ontario, when suddenly and without warning he slipped and fell thereby sustaining injuries and resulting damages for which he seeks compensation.

[3] The plaintiff pleads that the defendant Newmarket Plaza Limited was at all material times the owner/occupier of the premises located at 130 Davis Drive. The plaintiff pleads that the defendant Deltera Inc. was at all material times the property management company of Newmarket Plaza Limited. The plaintiff pleads that the defendant Leo Delzotto was the owner/President of both the defendant Newmarket Plaza Limited and the Defendant Davis Drive Investments limited .The Plaintiff alleges that Davis Drive investments Limited was all material times the owner/occupier of the premises located at 200 Davis Drive.

[4] In Khan v. Krylov & Company LLP, 2017 ONCA 625 the court states as follows at para. 12:

Rule 2.1 is an extremely blunt instrument. It is reserved for the clearest of cases, where the hallmarks of frivolous, vexatious or abusive litigation are plainly evident on the face of the pleading. Rule 2.1 is not meant to be an easily accessible alternative to a pleadings motion, a motion for summary judgement, or a trial.

[5] There is nothing on the face of the pleading before me which would support a finding that this action is frivolous or vexatious. Nothing in this endorsement precludes the defendants from pursuing remedies under Rule 20 or 21 as they deem advisable. I decline to direct the Registrar to send the notice in Form 2.1 A to the plaintiff.

Firestone J.

Date: October 30, 2017