Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-436846 DATE: 20210301 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Mann Engineering Ltd. and Aris Building Technology Inc. AND: Vipul Desai, DCL Engineering Limited, Certified Building Systems, Les Woods, 14282290 Ontario Inc., John Lucic, Channa Perrera and Hui Ying Yu, also known as Carol Yu

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Chalmers

COUNSEL: T. Flett, for the Plaintiffs J. Frustaglio, for the Defendants, Perrera and Yu

HEARD: Via teleconference

Endorsement

[1] The pre-trial conference in this matter was first scheduled for September 25, 2020, with Justice O’Brien. The then counsel for the Defendants, Channa Perrera and Carol Yu, advised Justice O’Brien that he had not received the file from previous counsel and was therefore not in a position to have any substantive discussions. Justice O’Brien rescheduled the pre-trial for February 19, 2021 and ordered that the trial is to proceed on April 19, 2021. She directed the parties to ensure they are fully prepared before proceeding with the next pre-trial.

[2] The pre-trial took place before me on February 19, 2021. The Defendants, Perrera and Yu were represented by their new counsel, Mr. Frustaglio. He advised that he has not received the file from the former solicitor despite request. Given the fact that he does not have the file, he was unable to fully participate in the pre-trial conference today. I adjourned the pre-trial for one week to February 26, 2021 to allow him to obtain the file and prepare for the pre-trial. At the pre-trial today, Mr. Frustaglio advised that he received the file from the Defendants’ former lawyers.

[3] Mr. Frustaglio advised that he expects to receive instructions to bring a motion for the disclosure of the settlement between the Plaintiff and the co-Defendants. It is his position that the settlement is relevant to the action against his clients. The Plaintiff’s solicitor maintained his position that the settlement is privileged. Mr. Frustaglio sought a date for the hearing of the motion. The motion will be less than 2 hours. I schedule the motion for March 24, 2021.

[4] Mr. Frustaglio also stated that he may require an adjournment of the trial. It is my view that the trial should proceed as scheduled on April 21, 2021. The Defendants have had known about the trial date since September 25, 2020. The Plaintiff has been delayed in having the matter adjudicated through no fault of its own. Having said that, if any new information arises from the motion for disclosure of the settlement with the co-Defendants, Yu and Perrera may renew their request for an adjournment of the trial.

[5] The Plaintiff requested costs of the pre-trial conference on February 19, 2021 on the basis that the Defendants were not prepared to fully participate and as a result, the second attendance was required. Mr. Frustaglio argues that he was able to participate in a meaningful manner and provided input into the completion of the Trial Management Report. I reserve the issue of the costs of the pre-trial conference to the trial judge.

[6] I am not seized of this matter.

Date: March 1, 2021