COURT FILE NOS.: CV-20-645992 (Toronto) and CV-20-3057 (Newmarket)

DATE: 20210713

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

TORONTO COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-645992

BETWEEN:

Elitrex Plumbing Ltd.

Plaintiff

– and –

Cassavia Estates Homes (Maple) Ltd., Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc., Pacifico Fontana, Giuseppe Tiano, Michael Cipriano and Peter Cipriano

Defendants

Adam Lifshitz, for the Plaintiff

Jerome Stanleigh, for the Defendants, Cassavia Estate Homes (Maple) Ltd., Pacifico Fontana and Giuseppe Tiano and the proposed Defendants, Luigi Tiano, Sestina Tiano and Brookshore Developments Limited

Gerald C. Borean and Gillian Gondosch, for the Defendants, Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc., Michael Cipriano, Peter Cipriano and the proposed Defendants, Dureen Tseu, Sapphire Hills Homes Inc. and Edenfield Developments Inc.

NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-3057

AND BETWEEN:

Artizan Interior & Exterior Finishings Inc., Cortina Kitchens Inc., Favaro Brothers Painting & Decorating Ltd., The Home Organizers Inc., Medi Group Inc., National Air Systems Inc., National Fireplaces and Facings Inc., Metropolitan Home Products Inc., Millway Carpentry Ltd., North York Tile Contractors Ltd., Paragon Drywall Contractors Ltd., Tam Electric Ltd., Trudel Enterprise Ltd., Trudel & Sons Roofing Ltd., and Velcan Forest Productions Inc.

Plaintiffs

– and –

Cassavia Estates Homes Limited, Cassavia Estate Homes (Maple) Ltd., Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc., Pacifico Fontana, Giuseppe Tiano, Michael Cipriano and Peter Cipriano

Defendants

Adam Lifshitz, for the Plaintiffs

Jerome Stanleigh, for the Defendants, Cassavia Estates Homes Limited, Cassavia Estate Homes (Maple) Ltd., Pacifico Fontana and Giuseppe Tiano and the proposed Defendants, Luigi Tiano, Sestina Tiano and Brookshore Developments Limited

Gerald C. Borean and Gillian Gondosch, for the Defendants, Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc., Michael Cipriano, Peter Cipriano and the proposed Defendants, Dureen Tseu, Sapphire Hills Homes Inc. and Edenfield Developments Inc.

HEARD: June 29, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION

CHARNEY J.:

[1] These motions concern two related actions brought by a number of contractors who entered into an agreement with the home builder, Cassavia Estate Homes (Maple) Ltd. (Cassavia Estate Homes) to complete work relative to each of their specialties. None of the plaintiffs have been paid for the work completed.

[2] The first action by Elitrex Plumbing Ltd. (the Elitrex action) was commenced in Toronto. The second action by Artizan Interior & Exterior Finishings Inc. and eleven other plaintiffs (the Artizan action) was commenced in Newmarket.

[3] The plaintiffs in both actions have brought a motion for four orders:

(a) An order transferring the Elitrex action from Toronto to Newmarket;

(b) An order granting leave to amend the Statement of Claim in both actions to add a number of defendants and allege that sales of homes by Cassavia to these defendants were fraudulent conveyances;

(c) An order granting leave to register certificates of pending litigation (CPL) on the properties that were the subject of the alleged fraudulent conveyances; and

(d) An order granting summary judgment in each action against the corporate defendant Cassavia Estate Homes.

Facts

[4] The defendant Cassavia Estate Homes carries on business in the construction industry as a home builder. It is the builder of townhouses on lots it had purchased in Maple, Ontario (the Maple Project). The defendants Pacifico Fontana and Giuseppe Tiano are directors of Cassavia Estate Homes. Together I will refer to them as the “Cassavia Estate Homes defendants”.

[5] The defendant Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc. (Gold Park) is a land developer and mortgagee. Gold Park loaned monies to the defendant Cassavia Estate Homes in connection with the Maple Project. The defendants Peter Cipriano and Michael Cipriano are the directors of Gold Park. Together I will refer to them as the “Gold Park defendants”.

[6] The Elitrex action was commenced on August 21, 2020 by Statement of Claim issued in Toronto. The plaintiff alleges that it completed all contracted work and remains unpaid. It alleges that it is owed $230,956 plus HST and interest.

[7] The claim alleges that when the builder, Cassavia Estate Homes, stopped paying its bills, the developer, Gold Park, held itself out as the payer of all agreements previously entered into by Cassavia Estate Homes and assumed the role of the builder in order to entice the plaintiff to return to the job site to finish the works. Elitrex alleges that it relied upon the representations of the Gold Park defendants to return and complete the work.

[8] Subsequent to the Elitrex claim being issued, twelve other contractors came forward who also alleged that they completed work at the same development and remain unpaid. The total amount claimed by these twelve contractors is approximately $3.3 million plus HST and interest.

[9] These twelve contractors issued their claim (the Artizan action) in Newmarket against the same defendants on October 28, 2020. The allegations against the defendants are substantially similar to the allegations made in the Elitrex action.

[10] After the close of pleadings, the plaintiffs discovered new information which, they allege, supports an allegation that that a number of homes from the Maple Project were sold by Cassavia Estate Homes to non-arm’s length purchasers at below market value. The plaintiffs allege that these sales were made to defeat or defraud the plaintiffs’ claims as lawful creditors of the defendants. The plaintiffs seek to amend their Statement of Claim to add the purchasers of those homes as defendants and allege that the sale of these homes by Cassavia to these defendants were fraudulent conveyances.

[11] If leave to amend the Statement of Claim is granted, the plaintiffs also seek an order granting leave to register CPLs on the properties that were the subject of the alleged fraudulent conveyances.

Transfer of the Elitrex action to Newmarket

[12] Requests for a transfer of a civil proceeding from one region to another are made pursuant to rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure[^1]. Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) provides that the court may transfer a proceeding to a region other than the one where it was commenced if the court is satisfied that a transfer is desirable in the interest of justice, having regard to,

(i) where a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to the claim occurred,

(ii) where a substantial part of the damages were sustained,

(iii) where the subject-matter of the proceeding is or was located,

(iv) any local community’s interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding,

(v) the convenience of the parties, the witnesses and the court,

(vi) whether there are counterclaims, crossclaims, or third or subsequent party claims,

(vii) any advantages or disadvantages of a particular place with respect to securing the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits,

(viii) whether judges and court facilities are available at the other county, and

(ix) any other relevant matter.

[13] The Elitrex action and the Artizan action name the same defendants, raise the same causes of action, relate to construction contracts undertaken at the same construction project in York Region, and have the same lawyers. The two actions have questions of law and fact in common and should be consolidated or heard at the same time (Rule 6.01). This can only occur if the actions are heard in the same region.

[14] All of the parties have consented to the Order to transfer the Elitrex action (Court File No. CV-20-645992) from Toronto to Newmarket. I am satisfied that this transfer is desirable in the interests of justice, and I will so order.

Amendments to the Statement of Claim

[15] The proposed amendments to the Statement of Claim seek to add six new parties whom the plaintiffs allege were the beneficiaries of, or participants in, fraudulent conveyances of homes built by Cassavia Estate Homes at the Maple project. The proposed amendments also claim a CPL against the relevant properties.

[16] The proposed new defendants are:

1. Luigi Tiano, the father of the defendant Giuseppe Tiano;

2. Sestina Tiano, the mother of the defendant Giuseppe Tiano;

3. Dureen Tseu, the spouse of the defendant Peter Cipriano;

4. Sapphire Hills Homes Inc., a corporation which names as its director the defendant Peter Cipriano;

5. Brookshore Developments Limited, a corporation which names as its director the defendant Giuseppe Tiano; and

6. Edenfield Developments Inc., a corporation which lists as its director Peter Cipriano.

[17] The proposed defendants Luigi Tiano, Sestina Tiano and Brookshore Developments Limited are represented on this motion by the same lawyers as the Cassavia Estate Homes defendants. While they deny the allegations in the proposed Amended Statement of Claim, they do not oppose the proposed amendments.

[18] The proposed defendants Dureen Tseu, Sapphire Hills Homes Inc. and Edenfield Developments Inc. are represented on this motion by the same lawyers as the Gold Park defendants. These defendants oppose the proposed amendments.

[19] Motions for leave to amend a pleading are governed by Rule 26.01, which provides:

On motion at any stage of an action the court shall grant leave to amend a pleading on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment.

[20] In 1588444 Ontario Ltd. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2017 ONCA 42, at para. 25, the Ontario Court of Appeal summarized the law regarding leave to amend motions as follows (citations omitted):

• The rule requires the court to grant leave to amend unless the responding party would suffer non-compensable prejudice; the amended pleadings are scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the court’s process; or the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action…

• The amendment may be permitted at any stage of the action…

• There must be a causal connection between the non-compensable prejudice and the amendment. In other words, the prejudice must flow from the amendments and not from some other source…

• The non-compensable prejudice may be actual prejudice, i.e. evidence that the responding party has lost an opportunity in the litigation that cannot be compensated as a consequence of the amendment. Where such prejudice is alleged, specific details must be provided…

• Non-compensable prejudice does not include prejudice resulting from the potential success of the plea or the fact that the amended plea may increase the length or complexity of the trial…

• At some point the delay in seeking an amendment will be so lengthy and the justification so inadequate, that prejudice to the responding party will be presumed…

• The onus to prove actual prejudice lies with the responding party…

• The onus to rebut presumed prejudice lies with the moving party…

[21] The Gold Park defendants oppose the proposed amendments on the basis that “the allegations raised in the proposed amended statement of claims (sic) are not relevant in any way with respect to the actions as commenced against the Gold Park defendants and others”.

[22] I reject this argument for two reasons. Firstly, “relevance” is not one of the reasons set out by the Court of Appeal for rejecting a proposed amendment. I suppose that a wholly irrelevant amendment could be denied if it rose to the level of “scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious”, but the Gold Park defendants do not advance such an argument on this motion.

[23] Second, the allegations of fraudulent conveyances by Cassavia to the proposed defendants for the purpose of defeating the plaintiffs’ claims as lawful creditors are directly relevant to the legal and factual issues raised in the causes of action set out in the Statements of Claim.

[24] The Gold Park defendants have not been able to point to any prejudice of any kind if this amendment is made. The Gold Park defendants have asked for “costs thrown away”, but have been unable to articulate what those costs might be. No doubt the defendants and proposed defendants will have to respond to the new allegations, and that this will result in additional costs, but this does mean that any costs to date have been wasted or “thrown away”.

[25] Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend the Statements of Claim as proposed is granted.

Certificate of Pending Litigation

[26] With this amendment to the Statements of Claim, the Plaintiffs have included a claim for a CPL in their pleading, as required by Rule 42.01(2).

[27] Pursuant to s. 103 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 chap.C.43, a CPL may be issued in an action if an interest in land is called into question. An action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is an action in which an interest in land is brought into question. A CPL may issue in an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, even if the plaintiff has no interest in the land and is not yet a judgment creditor: Fernandes v. Khalid, 2021 ONSC 190, at paras. 33 and 34, and cases cited therein.

[28] The parties agree that the law relating to the granting of a CPL where a fraudulent conveyance is alleged is fairly summarized by Diamond J. in Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation v. Foulidis, 2018 ONSC 7766; 2018 121633 (ON SC), at paras. 10-12:

The Test for a CPL

[10] Traditionally, when a fraudulent conveyance is alleged, title to a property is brought into question. In Keeton v. Cain, 1986 2854 (ONSC), Justice Scott held that a creditor need not have a personal interest in a property, but merely “need to claim title”. As long as there are more than bare allegations supporting a fraudulent conveyance, a sufficiently reasonable claim to an interest in land will exist and warrant the issuance of a CPL.

[11] The jurisprudence has since adapted to situations like the one before the Master, namely where a plaintiff is not yet a judgment creditor of the defendant who has alleged to have participated in a fraudulent conveyance. Where a plaintiff has yet to obtain judgment in the underlying/main action, the test for a CPL is set out in the decision of Justice Smith in Grefford v. Fielding, 2004 8709 (ONSC):

a) has the plaintiff satisfied the Court that there is a high probability that it will successfully recover judgment in the underlying/main action?

b) has the plaintiff introduced evidence demonstrating that the impugned transaction was made with the intent to defeat or delay creditors?

c) has the Plaintiff demonstrated that the balance of convenience favours the issuance of the CPL in the circumstances of the case?

[12] As held by Justice Sachs in Claireville Holdings Ltd. v. Votiuk, 2015 ONSC 694, the Grefford test “applies when the plaintiff has not yet obtained judgment in the underlying action.”

[29] Dealing with the first part of the test, there is a high probability that the plaintiffs will obtain a judgment against Cassavia Estate Homes. Indeed, as will be discussed when I consider the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion below, Cassavia Estate Homes does not dispute its liability to the plaintiffs and does not oppose the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant provided it does not affect the rights of Pacifico Fontana and Giuseppe Tiano to defend their individual positions against the claims made by the plaintiffs.

[30] With respect to the second part of the test, in the absence of direct evidence of an intent to defraud, courts have relied on surrounding circumstances or “badges of fraud” as establishing a prima facie case for intent to defraud based on suspicious fact situations. Proof of one or more badges of fraud will not necessarily result in a finding for a plaintiff, but may raise a prima facie evidentiary case that a defendant prudently should rebut. Traditional badges of fraud include, among other things, the donor continuing to possess and use the property as his own, the transfer being made in the face of threatened legal proceedings, transfer documents containing false statements as to consideration, the consideration being grossly inadequate, some benefit being retained under a settlement by a settlor, and a close relationship existing between parties to a conveyance: Indcondo v. Sloan, 2014 ONSC 4018 at paras. 50-55; affirmed 2015 ONCA 752; Fernandes, at para. 36.

[31] Although badges of fraud are signs of fraudulent intent, their presence does not mandate an inference of fraud to be drawn. The alleged badges of fraud must be considered in the context of the entire record. The existence of one or more badges of fraud may infer an intent to defraud in the absence of an explanation from the defendant: Urbancorp Toronto Management Inc. (Re), 2019 ONCA 757, at paras. 52-55; Fernandes, at para. 37.

[32] In the present matter the plaintiffs point to a number of “badges of fraud” that they argue support their position that there is at least a triable issue on the question of whether the impugned transactions were made with the intent to defeat or delay creditors.

[33] The first badge of fraud is the close relationship between the defendants Cassavia Estate Homes or Gold Park and the purchasers:

a. two homes were sold to Luigi and Sestina Tiano, the father and mother of the defendant Giuseppe Tiano,

b. one home was sold to the defendant Peter Cipriano and his spouse Dureen Tseu,

c. one home was sold to Sapphire Hills Homes Inc., a corporation which names as its director the defendant Peter Cipriano

d. one home was sold to Brookshore Development Ltd., a corporation which names as its director the defendant Giuseppe Tiano

[34] The second is that the homes were purchased with “high ratio” mortgages, and the mortgagee for all transactions was Edenfield Developments Inc., a corporation which lists as its director the defendant Peter Cipriano.

[35] The third is the allegation that each of the homes was purchased at below market value.

[36] In this regard, the plaintiffs emphasize that their onus at this stage of the test is only to present enough evidence to show the existence of a triable issue, they do not have to satisfy the Court that there is a “high probability” of fraud. The “high probability” requirement applies only at the first stage of the test for a CPL: Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation, at paras. 17 and 21.

[37] Here, context is everything. In many cases, the unexpected or precipitous sale of a property may be inherently suspicious. In the present case, Cassavia Estate Homes is in the business of building and selling homes. The fact that the homes that it built were all sold does not, by itself, raise any red flags.

[38] The fact some of the homes were sold to persons related to the defendants does raise a red flag, but is not, by itself, sufficient to raise a prima facie case of fraud.

[39] The real issue is whether the plaintiffs have provided some evidence that the homes were sold to these related persons conspicuously below fair market value. If so, they have raised a triable issue. If, however, the homes were sold at fair market value, there is nothing inherently suspicious about the sales.

[40] The plaintiffs rely on an affidavit filed by one of their lawyers to provide evidence that the impugned sales were made at less than fair market value. The lawyer who swore the affidavit was not the lawyer who argued the motion before me. While such an affidavit may be admissible, I note that lawyer’s affidavits on substantive issues are generally discouraged, even if the lawyer does not appear as counsel: Gutierrez v. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Canada et al., 2019 ONSC 3069, at paras. 36 – 43.

[41] The plaintiffs’ lawyer is obviously not qualified as an expert on the fair market value of the homes sold, nor is he impartial, independent and non-partisan. He is an advocate for his clients. Putting his argument in an affidavit gives it no more weight than if he had made the same argument as counsel in court.

[42] The lawyer’s affidavit tries to establish the fair market value of the homes by looking at the average prices of the 46 homes sold in the Maple Project. To this end, the affidavit attaches as an exhibit a chart which the lawyer identifies as “an analysis setting out the owner, consideration in transfer and mortgagee of each transaction in the subdivision”. This exhibit lists the 46 homes sold, the sale price, purchaser, mortgage amount and mortgagee for each transaction, and the information appears to be derived from the parcel abstracts of all sales in the Maple Project. The information contained in this exhibit is admissible evidence, and the question is whether the court can infer the fair market value of the properties sold from this information, as the plaintiffs’ lawyer urges me to do.

[43] The affidavit alleges that the average consideration for a sale in the Maple Project, excluding the impugned sales, was $836,342. In contrast, the affidavit states that the average price for the four homes sold to Luigi and Sestina Tiano, Peter Cipriano and Dureen Tseu and Sapphire Hills Homes is $747,613. The affidavit concludes that the average price of these impugned sales “seems to be significantly less than the average price of the main units” and argues that this is “evidence of a pattern of fraudulent preference that values that should have been available to the plaintiffs in both actions were transferred to non-arm’s length purchasers.”

[44] Significantly, this average price does not include the sale price of the home sold to Brookshore Developments Limited.

[45] The affidavit acknowledges that the sale of the home to Brookshore Developments Limited was for the above average price of $900,000, but states: “[B]y virtue of the conduct of the Defendants, it is suspected that this home was conveyed for below market value”.

[46] In my view, the evidence presented fails to show the existence of a triable issue with respect to the allegations of fraudulent conveyance. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.

[47] The plaintiffs’ evidence of fraud is based on the average sale price of all homes in the Maple Project as compared to the average sale price of 4 out of the 5 impugned home sales. The plaintiffs do not include the home sold to Brookshore Developments Limited for $900,000 – the highest sale price of the impugned properties. This is a flawed methodology. If the Brookshore sale is included, the average sale price of the 5 impugned properties increases to $778,091. This is still somewhat less than the overall average of $836,342, but is not conspicuously less or “grossly inadequate” consideration, which is the “badge of fraud” referenced at para. 52(h) of Indcondo).

[48] Moreover, comparing average sales prices is not evidence of the fair market value of any particular home. The homes in the Maple Project sold for prices ranging from $644,414 to $1,080,000. Seventeen of the 46 homes sold for under $800,000. There is no evidence that the impugned properties were comparable to the homes that sold for more than $800,000.

[49] As indicated, the plaintiffs acknowledge that the Brookshore property was sold for $900,000. This is more than the average price of properties in the Maple Project. Only 7 of the 46 properties sold for over $900,000. The only “evidence” that this property was sold for less than fair market value is the lawyer’s statement: “[B]y virtue of the conduct of the Defendants, it is suspected that this home was conveyed for below market value”. The plaintiffs lawyer’s suspicions are not evidence.

[50] The defendants have provided evidence that the impugned properties were sold to them at fair market value. The property sold to Peter Cipriano and Dureen Tseu, and the property sold to Sapphire Hills Homes, arose from the assignment of Agreements of Purchase and Sale (APS) from prospective arm’s length purchasers who were unable to complete their respective transactions.

[51] The property sold to Peter Cipriano and Dureen Tseu was originally sold by Cassavia Estate Homes to Cosimo Commisso on October 21, 2019. When Mr. Commisso was unable to complete the transaction, an Assignment and Assumption of the APS between Mr. Commisso and Mr. Cipriano was executed on June 17, 2020.

[52] Similarly, the property sold to Sapphire Hills Homes was originally sold by Cassavia Estate Homes to Frank J. Pechia on September 12, 2019. When Mr. Pechia was unable to complete the transaction, an Assignment and Assumption of the APS between Mr. Pechia and Sapphire Hill Homes was executed on June 17, 2020.

[53] Significantly, all of these transactions occurred before the Elitrex action was issued on August 21, 2020 and the Artizan action was issued on October 28, 2020.

[54] An affidavit has also been filed by the defendant, Giusippe Tiano. Mr. Tiano clarifies that one of the two impugned property sales was to his father and mother, Luigi and Sestina Tiano, but the second was to his son, Luigi Tiano Jr. This does not change the fact that the purchases were non-arm’s length transactions. There is, however, no motion to add Luigi Tiano Jr. as a defendant to this action at this time.

[55] Mr. Tiano acknowledges that the sales to his family members were made at a discount equal to the 6% commission that would normally be paid to the real estate broker. These homes were sold on June 26, 2020, before the Elitrex action was issued on August 21, 2020 and the Artizan action was issued on October 28, 2020.

[56] There was no evidence presented to suggest that these impugned sales in June, 2020 were “being made in the face of threatened legal proceedings”: Indcondo, at para. 52.

[57] In summary, reviewing the totality of the evidence presented on this motion, including the badges of fraud alleged by the plaintiffs, I am not satisfied that the evidence presented on this motion presents even a prima facie case that the impugned transactions were made with the intent to defeat or delay creditors. In particular, the evidence relating to the fair market value of the impugned properties is simply too methodologically flawed to satisfy the second part of the test for a CPL.

[58] In reaching this conclusion, I wish to emphasize that this is not a motion for summary judgment, and this decision does not preclude the plaintiffs from proving that there was a fraudulent conveyance when this matter comes to trial or is otherwise decided on its merits. I appreciate that this litigation is still in its early stages, and the plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to discover the defendants and assemble evidence to support their position. I find only that there is not sufficient evidence to support the registration of a CPL at this point in time.

Motion for Summary Judgment

[59] Finally, the plaintiffs seek an order granting summary judgment in each action against the corporate defendant Cassavia Estate Homes.

[60] Cassavia Estate Homes admits that it entered into agreements with the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are owed monies that were not paid. Cassavia Estate Homes does not oppose the summary judgment motion against the corporation only, so long as it does not affect the rights of Pacifico Fontana and Giuseppe Tiano from defending their individual positions against the claims made by the plaintiffs.

[61] Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in each action against the corporate defendant Cassavia Estate Homes is granted. This decision is without prejudice to any defence raised by the individual plaintiffs in this action.

Conclusion

[62] This Court Orders:

[63] The Toronto action Elitrex Plumbing Ltd. v. Cassavia Estate Homes (Maple) Ltd. et al, Court File No. CV-20-00645992-0000 is transferred to Newmarket to be consolidated or heard at the same time as Newmarket action Artizan Interior & Exterior Finishings Inc. et al v. Cassavia Estates Homes (Maple) Ltd. et al, Court File No. CV-20-00003057-0000.

[64] The plaintiffs in both actions are granted leave to amend the respective Statements of Claim in accordance with the draft Amended Statements of Claim found at Schedule A of the Motion Record.

[65] The plaintiffs’ motion for leave to register certificates of pending litigation in each action is dismissed.

[66] The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in each action against the Defendant Cassavia Estate Homes (Maple) Ltd. is granted.

[67] This parties had divided success on this motion. If the parties are not able to agree on costs, the plaintiffs may file costs submissions of no more than 5 pages plus costs outline and any offers to settle, within 20 days of the release of this decision, and the Cassavia Estate Homes defendants and the Gold Park defendants may each file costs submissions of no more than 3 pages plus costs outline and any offers to settle within a further 15 days.

[68] I have been appointed as the case management judge in these proceedings. If the parties require a case conference to address any outstanding procedural issues, one may be arranged through my assistant.

Justice R.E. Charney

Released: July 13, 2021

Elitrex Plumbing Ltd. v. Cassavia Estates Homes (Maple) Ltd., 2021 ONSC 4928

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Elitrex Plumbing Ltd.

Plaintiff

– and –

Cassavia Estates Homes (Maple) Ltd., Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc., Pacifico Fontana, Giuseppe Tiano, Michael Cipriano and Peter Cipriano

Defendants

AND BETWEEN:

Artizan Interior & Exterior Finishings Inc., Cortina Kitchens Inc., Favaro Brothers Painting & Decorating Ltd., The Home Organizers Inc., Medi Group Inc., National Air Systems Inc., National Fireplaces and Facings Inc., Metropolitan Home Products Inc., Millway Carpentry Ltd., North York Tile Contractors Ltd., Paragon Drywall Contractors Ltd., Tam Electric Ltd., Trudel Enterprise Ltd., Trudel & Sons Roofing Ltd., and Velcan Forest Productions Inc.

Plaintiffs

– and –

Cassavia Estates Homes Limited, Cassavia Estate Homes (Maple) Ltd., Gold Park (Woodbridge) Inc., Pacifico Fontana, Giuseppe Tiano, Michael Cipriano and Peter Cipriano

Defendants

REASONS FOR DECISION

Justice R.E. Charney

Released: July 13, 2021

[^1] Rule 13.1.02 does not apply to mortgage claims, which, pursuant to Rule 13.1.01(3) “shall be commenced in the county that the regional senior judge of a region in which the property is located…designates within that region for such claims.”