CITATION: Bestway (USA), INC. et al. v. Sgromo et al., 2017 ONSC 7467
COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-0539
DATE: 2017-12-13
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: BESTWAY (USA), INC., BESTWAY (HONG KONG) INTERNATIONAL LTD., BESTWAY INFLATABLES & MATERIAL CORP. (SHANGHAI), and PATRIZIO FUMAGALLI, EUREKA INVENTIONS LLC, LEONARD GREGORY SCOTT, BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, INC., IMPERIAL TOY LLC, PETER TIGER, and ART HIRSH, Applicants
v.
PIETRO, PASQUALE-ANTONIO SGROMO (PETER, ANTHONY SGROMO), WIDE EYES MARKETING LTD., EUREKA INVENTIONS LLC, and WAGMORE & BARKLESS LLC , Respondents
HEARD: December 11, 2017
BEFORE: Fitzpatrick J.
COUNSEL: D. Zulianello, for the Applicants IMPERIAL TOY LLC, PETER TIGER, and ART HIRSH, and agent for counsel for Applicants BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, INC.
P. Henein and K. Byers, for the Applicants BESTWAY (USA), INC., BESTWAY (HONG KONG) INTERNATIONAL LTD., BESTWAY INFLATABLES & MATERIAL CORP. (SHANGHAI), and PATRIZIO FUMAGALLI
J. Seavers, for the Applicants EUREKA INVENTIONS LLC, LEONARD GREGORY SCOTT
Self-represented, Respondents Not Appearing on Application
Endorsement On Application
[1] The Applicants seek an order under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act that no further proceeding shall be instituted by the Respondents, Pietro Pasquale-Antonio Sgromo (“Mr. Sgromo”), Wide Eyes Marketing Ltd. (“Wide Eyes”), Wagmore & Barkless LLC (“W&B”), or by any other corporations now or that may be in the future, controlled by Mr. Sgromo, in any court except with leave from this Honourable Court.
[2] The Applicants also seek an order that any matter currently before the Court, including appeals of four orders dismissing proceedings brought by the Respondents, currently scheduled for December 22, 2017, before the Court of Appeal of Ontario be stayed until further order of a Justice of the Superior Court of Justice.
[3] Further the Applicants asked that an order go sealing the court file for this matter.
[4] For reasons that follow, I grant the application to have Mr. Sgromo, Wide Eyes, W&B, and any other corporations now or that may be in the future controlled by Mr. Sgromo, declared vexatious litigants within the meaning of s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.
[5] Further, I order that Mr. Sgromo, Wide Eyes, W&B and any other corporations now or that may be in the future controlled by Mr. Sgromo, shall not commence any further proceeding in any court except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
[6] I decline to order the relief that any current proceedings, including the appeals scheduled for December 22, 2017 be stayed. I also decline to order that the court file be sealed.
Service of the Application and the Events of December 11, 2017
[7] Mr. Sgromo did not attend the hearing before me on December 11, 2017. He was paged. The Court waited until 10:17 a.m. to commence the hearing.
[8] I find Mr. Sgromo, Wide Eyes and W&B were all properly served with the application and all supporting material save and except the second Supplementary Affidavit of Isla Warren, sworn December 8, 2017. The Notice of Application was issued on November 9, 2017. It was served on Mr. Sgromo on November 10, 2017, as evidenced by the Affidavit of Service of Dean Price, Process Server of Vancouver, sworn November 15, 2017. On November 30, 2017, Mr. Sgromo was served with the Application Record by email, service to which he consented.
[9] Mr. Sgromo, Wide Eyes and W&B did not file a Notice of Appearance in response to being served with this application.
[10] I was provided with supplementary affidavit material which contained a series of emails that went back and forth between Mr. Sgromo, the court office and counsel for the various applicants over the period December 5, 2017 to December 7, 2017. It was on the basis of these emails that I find Mr. Sgromo was well aware of the December 11, 2017 hearing date and the materials that would be before the court on December 11, 2017.
[11] Mr. Sgromo made it clear in these emails, and in other emails in the material before me, that he had received the notice of application and the application record. He wrote on two occasions words to the effect that he thought the material was only good for shredding. He also made reference to the fact that material was contained in eight volumes, the same number that had been filed by the Applicants. In addition, Mr. Sgromo made it quite clear in two emails of December 7, 2017 that he did not plan to attend the hearing on December 11, 2017. He also declared that any judgment made in his absence would simply be appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
[12] Mr. Sgromo now lives in Abbotsford, British Columbia. On December 7, 2017 in an early morning email, he was given the option of attending the December 11, 2017 hearing by teleconference. He declined same citing a work obligation.
[13] The emails provided to the court in all the material indicated that Mr. Sgromo had an erroneous belief that he was precluded from attending in the Superior Court of Justice as the result of contents of a letter he had received from Regional Senior Justice Warkentin on May 12, 2017. Regional Senior Justice Warkentin’s letter was plain and direct. No reasonable reading of it would lead to a conclusion that it precluded, prohibited or restricted anybody from responding to process properly served on them or attending properly scheduled court dates.
[14] Further, Regional Senior Justice Warkentin directed that the following message be sent to all counsel on December 6, 2017:
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It is not my role as Regional Senior Justice to become involved in litigation between parties nor to advise them of a course of action. My letter to Mr. Sgromo was directed to inappropriate communications with the judiciary outside the courtroom. It has no bearing on matters that are properly before the Superior Court of Justice. Nothing in my correspondence to him indicated he could no longer appear in the Superior Court. That would require an order of the Court. The parties should make their submissions to the judge hearing the matter scheduled on December 11, 2017. If Mr. Sgromo was properly served, that too should be addressed before the judge at the return of the hearing.
[15] This email was copied to Mr. Sgromo.
[16] In my view, Mr. Sgromo’s failure to attend on December 11, 2017 at Thunder Bay either in person or by telephone was wilful, direct and inexcusable. I therefore proceeded to deal with the matter in his absence.
Background Facts
[17] Voluminous material was filed on behalf of the Applicants. I reviewed it all prior to the hearing. I found the summary of the evidence contained in the factum filed by the Applicants to be concise and useful. I repeat and rely on several paragraphs from the factum with some slight modification to remove words which I felt were more in the nature of argument.
[18] Mr. Sgromo is a Canadian citizen who was, at all times material to the Sgromo Actions, resident and domiciled in San Francisco, California. Wide Eyes is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of British Columbia, which is currently in the process of being dissolved. The Applicants take the position that W&B is an American corporation.
[19] The Applicants to this proceeding are as follows:
Bestway (USA), Inc., Bestway (Hong Kong) International Ltd., Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. (Shanghai) (collectively, the “Bestway Companies”) and Patrizio Fumagalli (“Fumagalli” and collectively with the Bestway Companies, the “Bestway Applicants”). The Bestway Companies are related companies which develop, produce, and sell sporting and leisure products. Fumagalli is the Chief Strategic Officer of Bestway (USA), Inc.;
Leonard Gregory Scott (“Scott”) and Eureka Inventions LLC (“Eureka”). Scott is an individual domiciled in California, USA, who was a business partner of Eureka and Sgromo’s former romantic partner. Eureka is a limited liability company governed by the laws of California.
Bail Hotline Bail Bonds Inc. (“Bail Hotline”); and
Imperial Toy, LLC, Peter Tiger, and Art Hirsh (collectively, “Imperial Toy”).
[20] Since late 2016, Mr. Sgromo has commenced four distinct proceedings in Ontario (and more recently in British Columbia) against multiple parties, all of whom were resident outside of Canada at all relevant times, making a litany of allegations.
[21] Mr. Sgromo’s allegations all appear to stem from his belief that there is a conspiracy to harm him and to steal intellectual property he claims ownership in, including, in particular, a United States patent in a children’s slide (the “US Patent”). A brief summary of the events leading to the lawsuits are as follows:
(a) In 2009, Wide Eyes entered into a licensing agreement and a non-disclosure agreement with Imperial Toy with respect to licensing various toy inventions in the United States.
(b) In 2013, Mr. Sgromo incorporated Eureka, along with his then business and romantic partner, Scott. Later that year, Mr. Sgromo assigned the US Patent to Scott and Eureka. Eureka, in turn, licensed the US Patent to certain Bestway Companies in certain licence agreements (the “Licence Agreements”). All of this took place in the United States.
(c) In 2015, Eureka (then under Mr. Sgromo’s control) commenced an action against two of the Bestway Companies in California with respect to the Licence Agreements (the “California Action”). Later that year, the parties settled the California Action, and Mr. Sgromo, W&B, Eureka, and the Bestway Companies each released one another from, inter alia, any future actions in respect of the subject matter of the California Action.
(d) Around the same time, Mr. Sgromo commenced an arbitration in California against Scott and Eureka, claiming royalties flowing from the US Patent (the “Arbitration”). In August 2016, Sgromo withdrew his arbitration claim.
(e) In 2015, disputes of a personal and business nature arose between Mr. Sgromo and Scott. Mr. Sgromo was charged criminally and incarcerated in San Francisco for the domestic abuse of Scott in San Francisco. While incarcerated in San Francisco, Mr. Sgromo engaged Bail Hotline, a California company, to post bail to the California court on his behalf.
(f) In 2014 and 2015, Mr. Sgromo and Wide Eyes negotiated with Polygroup International, Polygroup Limited (Macao Commercial Offshore), Polygroup Services N.A., Inc. and certain principals of those companies (collectively, “Polygroup”) with respect to use of the US Patent. These negotiations took place in Hong Kong and the United States and did not culminate in an agreement.
(g) Subsequently, Mr. Sgromo moved to his hometown of Thunder Bay, Ontario and in late 2016 and early 2017, Mr. Sgromo commenced four distinct proceedings against the Bestway Applicants, Scott and Eureka, Imperial Toy, other former business partners, and Bail Hotline.
[22] The Court File numbers for the various actions commenced at Thunder Bay are:
CV-16-0529-FW, against the Bestway Applicants, Eureka, and Scott (the “Scott Action”);
CV-16-0565-SR, against Polygroup (the “Polygroup Action”);
CV-16-0566-SR, against Bail Hotline (the “Bail Hotline Action”); and
CV-17-0102, against Imperial Toy (the “Imperial Toy Action”).
[23] Between April and June, 2017, Justices of the Superior Court at Thunder Bay dismissed all four actions on the basis that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the actions, and/or they constituted an abuse of process.
[24] On motions by the defendants, the Scott Action was dismissed by Justice D.C. Shaw for lack of jurisdiction on April 24, 2017, on the basis that its subject matter had already been litigated, settled, and released in California. Justice Shaw held that to allow the Scott Action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process. Justice Shaw also dismissed the Scott Action on the basis that this Honourable Court otherwise lacked jurisdiction simpliciter over the subject matter of the action. Justice Shaw noted in the costs decision on this motion that “[t]he action itself was improper, vexatious and unnecessary, as were certain allegations in the plaintiffs materials that dealt with matters of sex and violence.”
[25] Justice Shaw also granted motions to dismiss the Bail Hotline Action and the Polygroup Action for lack of jurisdiction on April 24, 2017. Justice Platana similarly granted a motion to dismiss the Imperial Toy Action for a lack of jurisdiction on June 27, 2017.
[26] Mr. Sgromo immediately appealed the dismissal of all four Actions. These appeals are currently scheduled to be heard December 22, 2017 by the Ontario Court of Appeal. He also sought to “set aside” the Scott Decision and subsequent costs decision by way of interlocutory motions to single judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal, despite being advised of the inappropriateness of such motions.
[27] Mr. Sgromo then brought additional overlapping actions against the defendants to the Scott Action. Specifically, the Sgromo Plaintiffs threatened to file a second Statement of Claim against the Bestway Applicants in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto and did file a substantially similar Notice of Civil Claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Chilliwack Registry) against the Bestway Applicants (the “BC Notice of Civil Claim”).
[28] On December 6, 2017, Mr. Sgromo issued a civil claim notice personally against a Judge of the California State Court, in Northern District of California San Francisco Division Court, giving notice of intention to sue the judge in his personal capacity in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The Law
[29] Section 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act provides:
Where a judge of the Superior Court of Justice is satisfied, on application, that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds,
(a) instituted vexatious proceedings in any court; or
(b) conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner,
The judge may order that,
(c) No further proceeding be instituted by the person in any court; or
(d) a proceeding previously instituted by the person in any court not be continued, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
[30] Section 140 engages an established and well know principle that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to control its process and prevent abuse to it and other participants in it.
[31] The jurisprudence in Ontario regarding vexatious litigants is relatively well developed. No doubt, the power to declare a party a vexatious litigant is an extraordinary remedy and must be exercised sparingly (Dobson v. Green, 2012 ONSC 4432 paras. 6 – 9). Our courts, however, have adopted useful guidelines by which to assess whether or not certain persons, who have been engaged in the civil justice system in a particularly vexatious way, require their future or ongoing participation in the process to be severally controlled. Principles set out by Henry J. in the leading case Re Lang Michener and Fabian (1987), 1987 CanLII 172 (ON SC), 59 O.R. (2d) 353 HCJ (adopted with approval by many decisions including the Ontario Court of Appeal in Canada (Attorney General) v. Mennes, 2014 ONCA 690) are very useful and appropriate in determining matters such as the present case. At para. 20 of Lang Michener, Henry J. set out the following principles to be applied in considering a vexatious litigant application:
(a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding;
(b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious;
(c) vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights;
(d) it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings;
(e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action;
(f) the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious;
(g) the respondent's conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings.
[32] These principles are recognized as not being exhaustive. In addition, the court can look to behaviour both inside and outside the courtroom to assess if the conduct of a litigant is sufficient to bring them within the definitions set out in s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act. (Dobson v. Green, supra, at para. 12).
[33] Recently Justice Carole J. Brown summarized the purpose of s. 140 at paras. 11 and 12 of the decision Beard Winter LLP v. Shekhdar 2017 ONSC 4846:
11 An Order under section 140 is beneficial to all parties as it ensures that public resources are not wasted on vexatious litigation, protects the targets of vexatious litigation from the time and cost of mounting a defence, and also serves the litigant who is attempting to proceed with vexatious litigation by averting what would inevitably be a costly, time-consuming and futile effort: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Chavali, [1998] O.J. No. 5890 (Gen. Div.) at para. 26.
12 The section 140 Order does not prevent access to the Court, but rather requires that applications for leave to the Court be granted before a plausible claim can proceed, while vexatious proceedings will be thwarted: Law Society of Upper Canada v. Chavali, supra.
Disposition
[34] I find Mr. Sgromo has sought to redetermine issues already determined by a Court of competent jurisidiction. Justice Shaw so found in the Scott Action on April 24, 2017. Mr. Sgromo engaged in an abuse of process to attempt to re-litigate in Ontario matters that had been settled in California. It is a badge of vexatiousness that Ontario had nothing to do with the dispute in the first place. Mr. Sgromo now seeks to try again in British Columbia. I will leave it to the judiciary in British Columbia to deal with this finding as it will, but in my view, this action indicates Mr. Sgromo is determined to roll forward grounds and issues from prior proceedings to repeat and supplement them in later proceedings.
[35] Mr. Sgromo wasted the time of Court staff at Thunder Bay by attempting to institute nonsensical proceedings directed at overturning the decision of Justice Shaw in the Scott action. This was despite the fact his appeal directly to the Court of Appeal was pending. In my view, this qualifies as a type of behaviour that Henry J. categorized as being obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, and was therefore vexatious.
[36] Mr. Sgromo brought frivolous motions in three of the pending matters before the Court of Appeal which were dismissed by the order of Benotto J.A. on November 2, 2017. One of the grounds for relief was a transfer of the matters to British Columbia. Mr. Sgromo seems content on continuing matters wherever he is, completely disregarding the consequences to other parties based on actions he had taken to date. I find these actions on his part to be vexatious.
[37] I find Mr. Sgromo has also brought a claim against the parties in the Imperial Toy Action in British Columbia which is substantially similar to the pleadings in the action that was dismissed at Thunder Bay. He has threatened to commence a small claims court action against Bail Hotline in Abbotsford.
[38] In my view, these actions on the part of Mr. Sgromo are all indicia that he will persist in bringing multiple actions to decide matters that have already been decided. This is vexatious conduct. It requires a declaration under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.
[39] I also find that Mr. Sgromo’s conduct towards other counsel and his comments about members of the judiciary contained in his email correspondence are evidence of a vexatious attitude that requires sanction.
[40] The materials before me are rife with emails from Mr. Sgromo containing threats, rude comments and vulgar ad hominem attacks on the persons and the integrity of both counsel and their clients. Mr. Sgromo threatens to have counsel disbarred. Mr. Sgromo claims two justices in Thunder Bay have shown a reasonable apprehension of bias towards him without a shard of evidence to that end. He threatens complaints against court staff and the judiciary. He has apparently commenced an action against a judge in California. He suggests counsel have paid off judges.
[41] However, it is his repeated, crass, rude and unending insults to counsel and their clients, that for me, most clearly underlines the need to prevent future damage to the civil justice system in Ontario by having Mr. Sgromo and any company he controls to be declared vexatious litigants. The Applicant’s factum at paragraph 56 outlines ten different occasions where Mr. Sgromo has hurled unnecessary, hurtful and vexatious vitriol at opposing counsel and their clients in email correspondence. In particular, his remarks about local counsel in Thunder Bay, on one occasion, borders on hate speech in my view. These words were contained in an email dated Tuesday, November 7, 2017. If such words were made by a lawyer to another lawyer, or from a colleague to another in a workplace, or in a university from a student to a professor or even across the floor of the House of Commons during question period, I believe the response would be swift and severe and unquestioned by any rationale individual. The response would be utter and complete condemnation.
[42] Mr. Sgromo adds to this outrage by contining to use an intentional misspelling of counsel’s name in later emails to continue the insult. In my view, his words were intentional and designed to demean, insult and to bully. It is harrassing behaviour that is vexatious conduct. This kind of action has no place in our civil justice system. It cannot be forgiven because Mr. Sgromo is self represented. To repeat Mr. Sgromo’s words in a judgement elevates them well beyond their worthlessness. They speak for themselves. They betray Mr. Sgromo for what he is, a vexatious litigant.
[43] In my view, in many, many ways noted above, the Applicants have proven in this matter that Mr. Sgromo is a vexatious litigant. His actions require consequences. The most appropriate consequence is that he, and corporations controlled by him, be declared vexatious litigants. A second and equally appropriate consequence is that he will no longer be able to commence new civil litigation proceedings in Ontario without leave of the Superior Court.
[44] I am not inclined to extend this prohibition to the existing appeals. This is because his appeals have been perfected, and are on the doorstep of the Court of Appeal. Also, both Paciocco J.A. and Benotto J.A. have been involved in organizing the appeals. There is an outstanding matter of costs arising from the endorsement of Benotto J.A. of November 2, 2017 which has been reserved to the panel hearing the appeals. In my view, the Court of Appeal must be allowed to deal with these appeals in all the circumstances. In my view, it would cause more problems than it is worth, to accede to the request by the Applicants to order that the appeals be stayed as the result of the finding of Mr. Sgromo to be a vexatious litigant. The Court of Appeal will deal with his appeals. If Mr. Sgromo’s threats are to be believed, the Court of Appeal will deal with this decision as well. However, for the time being, Mr. Sgromo shall not be able to practice the time-wasting and rude behaviour he has exhibited thus far in these files on other persons in Ontario at least in the context of new civil actions.
[45] Section 140 (4)(d) of the Courts of Justice Act gives the Attorney General the right to be heard on a future application for leave to proceed by a vexatious litigant. I will provide for language in my order confirming that right.
[46] I am not inclined to order the Court file be sealed. If there is any attempt to publish the various threats, accusations or abusive emails contained in Mr. Sgromo’s materials by any person, the defamatory nature of the comments would give rise to a cause of action against those persons. Balancing that risk against the principle of open courts, I come down on the side of open courts.
[47] It will not be necessary for the Applicants to obtain the approval of the resulting order from the respondents as they did not file a Notice of Appearance or appear at this hearing.
Costs
[48] Only certain Applicants had a bill of costs available at this hearing. I have reviewed the bill of costs for the Bestway Applicants and the Imperial Toy Applicants. Clearly, there was a great deal of time spent on this application. However, I expect there was some overlap between counsel which should not necessarily fall to Mr. Sgromo despite the fact he has been found to be a vexatious litigant. Accordingly, I am prepared to allow partial indemnity costs to all counsel. I have reduced the claim by the Bestway counsel on a proportionality basis. The bill of costs for counsel for Imperial Toy seemed reasonable.
[49] In the circumstances costs shall be fixed and payable forthwith by Mr. Sgromo, Wide Eyes and W& B jointly and severally to the parties noted below as follows:
to Bestway (USA), Inc., Bestway (Hong Kong) International Ltd., Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. (Shanghai) and Patrizio Fumagalli; $15,000.00, plus HST, plus disbursements in the amount of $4,000.00;
to Leonard Gregory Scott and Eureka Inventions LLC, $3,500.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST;
to Bail Hotline Bail Bonds Inc., $3,5000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST; and
to Imperial Toy, LLC, Peter Tiger, and Art Hirsh, $5,927.86, plus HST, plus disbursements of $848.96.
[50] Accordingly, order to go on the following terms:
No further proceeding shall be instituted by the respondents, Pietro Pasquale-Antonio Sgromo (“Sgromo”), Wide Eyes Marketing Ltd. and Wagmore & Barkless LLC, or by any other corporations now or that in the future may be controlled by Sgromo (collectively, the “Sgromo Plaintiffs”), in any court except by leave of a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
That the service of all pleadings in this Application on the Sgromo Plaintiffs are hereby validated.
Should any or all of the Sgromo Plaintiffs seek to commence or continue a proceeding in any Court governed by the Courts of Justice Act without first filing an entered order permitting any of them to do so, that proceeding shall immediately be stayed upon any person filing a copy of this order.
On any application by any or all of the Sgromo Plaintiffs for leave to initiate or continue any proceeding in any Court governed by the Courts of Justice Act in Ontario, any of them shall provide written notice of such application to the Attorney General of Ontario and to the Respondents to that application at least 10 days before the application is brought.
Should any or all of the Sgromo Plaintiffs obtain leave to initiate or continue any proceeding in any Court governed by the Courts of Justice Act, the said Sgromo Plaintiffs must first satisfy all outstanding awards of costs against them referenced in these reasons.
Costs of this application fixed and payable forthwith by Mr. Sgromo, Wide Eyes and W& B jointly and severally to the parties noted below as follows:
to Bestway (USA), Inc., Bestway (Hong Kong) International Ltd., Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp. (Shanghai) and Patrizio Fumagalli; $15,000.00 plus HST plus disbursements in the amount of $4,000.00;
to Leonard Gregory Scott and Eureka Inventions LLC, $3,500.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST;
to Bail Hotline Bail Bonds Inc., $3,5000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST; and
to Imperial Toy, LLC, Peter Tiger, and Art Hirsh, $5,927.86 plus HST plus disbursements of $848.96
- The consent or approval as to form and content of the Sgromo, Wide Eyes and W&B to this Order is hereby dispensed with.
_“original signed by”
The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick
DATE: December 13, 2017
CITATION: Bestway (USA), INC. et al. v. Sgromo et al., 2017 ONSC 7467
COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-0539
DATE: 2017-12-13
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: BESTWAY (USA), INC., BESTWAY (HONG KONG) INTERNATIONAL LTD., BESTWAY INFLATABLES & MATERIAL CORP. (SHANGHAI), and PATRIZIO FUMAGALLI, EUREKA INVENTIONS LLC, LEONARD GREGORY SCOTT, BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, INC., IMPERIAL TOY LLC, PETER TIGER, and ART HIRSH, Applicants
v.
PIETRO, PASQUALE-ANTONIO SGROMO (PETER, ANTHONY SGROMO), WIDE EYES MARKETING LTD., EUREKA INVENTIONS LLC, and WAGMORE & BARKLESS LLC , Respondents
HEARD: December 11, 2017
COUNSEL: D. Zulianello, for the Applicants IMPERIAL TOY LLC, PETER TIGER, and ART HIRSH, and agent for BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, INC.
P. Henein and K. Byers, for the Applicants BESTWAY (USA), INC., BESTWAY (HONG KONG) INTERNATIONAL LTD., BESTWAY INFLATABLES & MATERIAL CORP. (SHANGHAI), and PATRIZIO FUMAGALLI
J. Seavers, for the Applicants EUREKA INVENTIONS LLC, LEONARD GREGORY SCOTT
Self-represented, Respondents Not Appearing on Application
ENDORSEMENT ON APPLICATION
Fitzpatrick J.
DATE: December 13, 2017
/sab