COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-4172-00

DATE: 2022 10 07

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

JENNIFER NEVILLE-LAKE, EDWARD LAKE, JOSEPHINE NEVILLE by her Litigation Guardian Jennifer Neville-Lake, ESTATE OF HARRISON NEVILLE-LAKE by his litigation administrator JENNIFER NEVILLE-LAKE, AND MILAGROS NEVILLE-LAKE by her litigation administrator JENNIFER NEVILLE LAKE

John Adair and Melissa Sidhu, Counsel for the Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

• and -

MARCO Michael MUZZO, AYRFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED o/a MAREL CONTRACTORS, ZUM AVIATION INC., SKYSERVICE AIRLINES INC., SKYSERVICE INVESTMENTS INC., SKYSERVICE BUSINESS AVIATION INC., LINDA FRACCARO, CHAD COLLINS, and JAMES BONNELL

Christian Breukelman, Counsel for the Defendant Muzzo/ Marel Contractors.
No one appearing for the other Defendants.

Defendants

HEARD: September 23 and October 4, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION

LEMAY J.

[1] This is a tragic and well-known case. On September 27th, 2015, the Defendant Marco Muzzo had returned to Pearson Airport on a private jet from his bachelor party in Miami. He was driving while under the influence of alcohol. He collided with the minivan being driven by Neriza Neville. The minivan had numerous passengers, including Ms. Neville’s grandchildren. A number of the passengers in the minivan died as a result of the collision, including Ms. Neville’s three grandchildren.

[2] Mr. Muzzo pled guilty to four counts of impaired driving causing death and two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm. He was sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment, less credit for time served. I understand that he is now out on bail.

[3] Ms. Neville’s daughter, Jennifer Neville-Lake, and her husband Edward Lake commenced this action against Mr. Muzzo as well as numerous corporate entities that include Mr. Muzzo’s employer and the company that owned the private jet. The action has also been brought against the pilots of the private jet and the flight attendant who was on the private jet on September 27th, 2015. The claims that have been brought include claims under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F.3, general and special damages and punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages.

[4] This action has been ongoing for some time. Discoveries were held in 2019, but the answers to undertakings and refusals have not yet been completed. There is also a partial summary judgment motion that has been scheduled for January 11th, 2023 for three hours. A principal purpose of the partial summary judgment motion is to determine whether the claims for punitive damages as against Mr. Muzzo should be allowed to proceed to trial. There is also an issue as to the tenability of one of the claims that has been brought by a party who did not witness the accident, but that claim is not relevant to the issues I am required to determine.

[5] The motion before me is a motion to compel Mr. Muzzo to answer various questions and provide various documents that he has refused to provide. The scope of the motion has shrunk considerably from the time that it was originally filed. The reasons that follow set out my general disposition of the issues in dispute. I have also attached, as Appendix “A” to these reasons, my specific disposition of each issue in dispute.

Background

a) The Accident and the Claim

[6] I have briefly described the accident in the opening paragraphs of these reasons. I will set out portions of the history that are necessary to understand my disposition of the issues. In setting out this history, I note that I am not making findings of fact that bind any trier of fact. My conclusions are preliminary in nature only, and are based on the materials that the parties filed.

[7] The accident took place on September 27th, 2015 at the corner of Kriby Road and Kipling Avenue in the City of Vaughan. Members of the Neville-Lake family were in a minivan owned by the Plaintiff Jennifer Neville-Lake and were driving westbound on Kirby Road. At the same time, Mr. Muzzo was driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee that I understand was owned by one of the Defendants northbound along Kipling Avenue. There was a two way stop at the intersection that required traffic on Kipling Avenue to stop. Traffic on Kirby Road was not required to stop. As a result, the Neville-Lake vehicle had the right of way.

[8] Mr. Muzzo did not stop at the stop sign. Indeed, when the Jeep struck the Neville-Lake vehicle, it was travelling at approximately 85 km/h. The brakes had been being applied for some time. Mr. Muzzo was significantly intoxicated at the time of the accident and pled guilty to a number of charges.

[9] As a result of the accident, Gary Neville (the husband of Neriza Neville) and Daniel Neville-Lake (one of Ms. Neville-Lake and Mr. Lake’s children) were killed almost instantly. In addition, Harrison Neville-Lake and Milagros Neville-Lake (the other two children of Ms. Neville-Lake and Mr. Lake) died in hospital early the next day as a result of the injuries they sustained in the accident.

[10] Mr. Muzzo was charged with four counts of impaired driving causing death and two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm. He pled guilty to these charges and was sentenced in July of 2016 to ten years in prison less time served (see 2016 ONSC 2068). Part of the materials that were provided to the sentencing judge included a report from a Dr. Glancy, who I understand is an experienced forensic psychiatrist.

[11] Earlier on the day of the accident, Mr. Muzzo had returned from Miami where he had been for the weekend with friends. It was his bachelor party. Mr. Muzzo had departed for Miami, along with friends and family members on September 24th, 2015. The details of what took place on the trip are disputed by the Plaintiffs, although Mr. Muzzo told Dr. Glancy that it was a low key and easygoing affair.

[12] This brings me to the corporate defendants. There appears to be a connection between all of the corporate defendants and the incident in question. Certainly, on the Plaintiffs’ allegations, a connection appears to exist. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant Ayrfield Holdings Limited (“Ayrfield”) was the owner of the vehicle that Mr. Muzzo was driving, that Zum Aviation Inc. was the owner of the private jet. The Plaintiffs further allege that one or these companies or Marel Contractors was the employer of Mr. Muzzo. The Plaintiffs also allege that Ayrfield chartered the jet, organized the bachelor party and paid for the jet.

[13] The trip was allegedly arranged by administrative staff at the various corporations. Although the documents were not before me, I understand that there were e-mails back and forth between various administrative staff that set out the arrangements.

b) The Litigation History

[14] This action was commenced in 2017. Discoveries were held in 2019, but the determination of whether the Defendant should be required to answer certain refusals has not yet been made. In addition, counsel for Mr. Muzzo is seeking to bring a motion for partial summary judgment. This motion will seek, inter alia, to have the punitive damages claims dismissed as against Mr. Muzzo on the basis that he has already been punished for his wrongdoing.

[15] Discoveries were conducted in 2019. A motion to deal with undertakings and refusals was scheduled for May of 2020 but did not proceed. Similarly, the motion for summary judgment was brought, but has also not proceeded.

[16] This action has been languishing for more than two years. Both counsel advised me that there was no real blame to be apportioned for these delays as there was some issue about whether the undertakings motion should proceed at the same time as the summary judgment motion. However, at the time that this motion was filed by the Plaintiffs, I understand that none of the undertakings had been answered. Those undertakings were not answered until August of this year, nearly three years after discoveries.

[17] As a result of the delays, at a case conference on July 7th, 2022, Ricchetti R.S.J. directed that the motions take place separately. He scheduled the motion for undertakings and refusals for the week of September 19th, 2022 and the summary judgment motion for January 11th, 2023. As part of his endorsement, Ricchetti R.S.J. specifically stated that the answers required as a result of this motion are to be provided in advance of the summary judgment motion. He also provided the parties with the ability to return before him to deal with any issues arising from the questions asked on the continued discovery.

[18] At a hearing on September 23rd, 2022, I was advised that one of the counsel was ill and was not able to attend. The parties advised me that they had agreed that they would attend at the further discoveries and then put any further matters before Ricchetti R.S.J. However, they also advised me that they would address the matters that they already knew were going to be in dispute at the same time. I rejected this approach as it might have put the summary judgment motion at risk and this matter needs to be moved along more promptly. As a result, I directed the parties to appear before me on October 4th, 2022 to argue the merits of the motion.

[19] Given the procedural history and the need for a prompt decision, I have provided the parties with a more summary decision. I have also provided further directions at the end of these reasons about how and when questions are to be answered. These directions are provided to ensure that the summary judgment motion will proceed in January and are made in harmony with the directions that Ricchetti R.S.J. has provided.

The Parties’ Positions and the Issues

[20] The Plaintiffs and Mr. Muzzo dispute whether a claim for punitive damages can be brought against Mr. Muzzo because of the fact that was sentenced to a significant period of incarceration for the events of September 27th, 2015. Counsel for Mr. Muzzo also argues that the civil courts should not be going behind the sentences imposed by the criminal courts. As a result, the Plaintiff’s questions relating to or touching upon these issues are improper and irrelevant.

[21] Plaintiffs’ counsel disagrees. He argues that Mr. Muzzo was dishonest with the Court at the time of sentencing and that, as a result, Mr. Muzzo has not been sufficiently punished for these events. More broadly, counsel argues that punitive damages can be awarded against Mr. Muzzo on the basis of his history of alcohol abuse, driving infractions and disregard for the lives and safety of others. In any event, however, Plaintiffs’ counsel argues that this motion should not be determined by who is correct in law about whether a claim can be made for punitive damages. Instead, it should be determined on the basis of discovery rights.

[22] In addition to this preliminary issue, both sides have identified eight different areas where there are specific items in dispute. However, those areas have been reduced as a result of the fact that Mr. Muzzo has both provided some answers to undertakings and has agreed to answer some of the questions that were originally refused. There are four areas remaining for me to consider, as follows:

a) Historical alcohol use and other related issues.

b) Past driving infractions, including speeding.

c) Social media posts and information.

d) Statements made by Mr. Muzzo to police and the Court as well as information about his incarceration.

[23] In addition to these issues, counsel for the Plaintiffs had sought orders in respect of a further examination for discovery and for production of a further and better Affidavit of Documents. However, I understand that the parties have agreed on a date of October 30th, 2022 for further discovery and that the other orders are, at this point, not necessary.

[24] The sections that follow will begin with a discussion of my conclusions on the preliminary issue, as that answer will determine whether many of the refusals must be answered. I will then deal with specific issues from each of the areas that remain outstanding. Finally, I will address the follow-up steps to be taken in this matter.

[25] Before beginning my discussion of the specific issues, I should note that neither counsel argued proportionality as a reason to require (or preclude) disclosure. In my view, given the size and complexity of the claims and the straightforward nature of most of the answers sought by the Plaintiff, there is no basis to prohibit the Plaintiff from asking the questions in this motion on proportionality concerns alone.

The Preliminary Issue- The Claim for Punitive Damages

[26] Counsel for Mr. Muzzo argues that the claim for punitive damages as against his client has no chance of success. This argument is based on a series of court decisions. These decisions begin with Whiten v. Pilot Insurance 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 where Binnie J. noted (at para. 123) that punitive damages could be awarded if, but only if, all of the other penalties have been taken into account and have been found to be inadequate to punish the wrongdoer.

[27] This reasoning was expanded on in McIntyre v. Grigg (2006) 2006 CanLII 37326 (ON CA), 83 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.). In that decision, the Court noted (at paras. 79-80) that the general rule was that, where there had already been a criminal punishment for wrongdoing, punitive damages would not serve a rational purpose because the sentence imposed will have already met the necessary requirements of denunciation and deterrence.

[28] Although the Court in McIntyre concluded that punitive damages were available for the Plaintiff in that case, the circumstances where someone is convicted criminally and then sanctioned with punitive damages will be very narrow. The Court of Appeal explained the narrowness of the application of McIntyre in Cobb v. Long Estate 2017 ONCA 717. Counsel for Mr. Muzzo argues that Cobb, properly applied, would result in the dismissal of any claim of punitive damages brought by the Plaintiffs against Mr. Muzzo because of the fact that he has already been sentenced to ten (10) years in jail. Given that the Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages cannot succeed, questions about that claim should not be permitted.

[29] There are several problems with this argument. First, and most importantly, there is the purpose of discovery and of production motions more generally. A key purpose of discovery is to ascertain the facts about the Plaintiff’s claims. Discovery is not an opportunity to adjudicate those claims.

[30] In this case, counsel for Mr. Muzzo seeks to preclude any discovery on the issue of punitive damages on the basis of his assertion that a claim for partial summary judgment will fully dispose of that claim against his clients. This is not how discovery works. In Denault v. Alplay 2016 ONSC 1618, Lederman J. noted (at para 17):

[17] It was an error of law for the Master to focus on whether the defendants have been unable to produce convincing evidence of the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s prior left arm injury. Weighing the evidence and fact finding are the responsibility of the trier of fact and not a proper consideration for the determination of relevance for the purposes of what should be contained in an affidavit of documents. In fact, the very evidence the defence would need to prove the extent of the prior injuries, is the very evidence being sought on this motion.

[31] Before the Plaintiffs face a summary judgment motion, they should have an opportunity to lay out all of the facts in support of their position on that motion. This requires the Defendant, Mr. Muzzo, to disclose documents that are relevant to the Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.

[32] One example of the problems with Mr. Muzzo’ argument will suffice. One of the points that the Plaintiffs make is that this is one of those rare cases covered by the principles in McIntyre. This argument is advanced on the basis (as discussed at paragraph 21) that Mr. Muzzo allegedly concealed information from the sentencing judge as well as on the basis that the punitive damages claim must be assessed against the entire course of conduct. If information about Mr. Muzzo’s driving history is not disclosed, then it will be harder for the Plaintiff to make this argument at the summary judgment motion. Whether the argument is going to be successful is not an issue for me to determine. This consideration, in and of itself, is sufficient to require the questions to be answered.

[33] Counsel for Mr. Muzzo argues that it is plain and obvious that the claim for punitive damages cannot succeed. In my view, that argument cannot preclude the Plaintiffs from asking the questions at this point for the following additional reasons:

a) Even if Mr. Muzzo’s summary judgment motion was successful, the punitive damages claim would continue to be advanced against all of the other Defendants and relevant questions would have to be answered anyway.

b) Counsel for the Plaintiffs argued that there is a novel issue here, which is whether McIntyre would apply in a case where the Defendant had lied to the Court on sentencing. While I make no comment on the strength of this argument, I note that it is an argument that can be made and that the Plaintiffs are entitled to all relevant documentation to advance their claim and defend against the summary judgment motion.

[34] For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that Mr. Muzzo’s position on the summary judgment motion does not assist him in either avoiding disclosure of documents or in answering questions. This conclusion informs my findings on which refusals need to be answered. I note that there are arguments of relevance raised about some of these issues and I will deal with those in my analysis of the specific issues that remain.

Issue #1- Historical Alcohol Abuse and Drinking in Miami

[35] At this point, the only issues that remain to be decided on this point relate to the disclosure of evidence about the entirety of the weekend in Miami. Counsel for the Plaintiff seeks disclosure over the entirety of the trip. Counsel for Mr. Muzzo seeks to limit disclosure to the twenty-four hours before the accident took place. Mr. Muzzo’s argument is that discovery should relate to the accident and that the further away in time the disclosure is, the less relevant it becomes.

[36] There are two problems with Mr. Muzzo’s arguments on this point. First, the Statement of Claim itself (in, inter alia, paragraph 80) shows that the Plaintiffs are advancing a claim about a pattern of conduct more generally. As a result, the facts of this case are, at least at this stage, not limited to the accident and the events immediately preceding the accident.

[37] Second, the Plaintiffs allegations are about the conduct of all of the Defendants. As a result, the events of the entire trip could be relevant to both negligence and punitive damages. The extent of the Defendants’ obligations in negligence especially may turn on what they knew and when they knew it. If it was the low-key weekend that Mr. Muzzo described to Dr. Glancy then that fact may be used by the Defendants to argue that the risk of Mr. Muzzo driving while drunk was not reasonably foreseeable. If, on the other hand, it was a weekend where Mr. Muzzo (and others) were heavily intoxicated, then the risk of Mr. Muzzo driving drunk may have been more reasonably foreseeable and the other Defendants may have been obligated to take more steps. I am not making any conclusions on this point, I am simply observing why this evidence might be relevant.

[38] Based on the foregoing, the events of the entire weekend are relevant and the Defendant’s desire to limit disclosure to twenty-four hours is not supportable.

Issue #2- Past Driving Infractions

[39] Given my conclusions on the preliminary issue, this group of questions can be dealt with very briefly. The Plaintiffs have advanced the argument that punitive damages should be awarded based on the course of allegedly conduct that Mr. Muzzo engaged in over a period of time and not just the accident giving rise to the claim.

[40] I make no comment on the strength of that argument. However, the fact that the argument is being advanced means that the information sought by the Plaintiffs is relevant. It is to be disclosed.

Issue #3- Social Media Requests

[41] There are a few very granular requests on this issue, and I have set my determinations on them (and my reasons) out in the chart. However, there is a more general and overarching issue about the scope of disclosure for social media that must be addressed.

[42] Counsel have both directed me to relevant case law. Counsel for Mr. Muzzo has directed me to the decision of Leitch J. of this Court in Jones v. I.F. Propco, 2018 ONSC 23. In that case, involving a motor vehicle accident, the Court considered a defence request for the Plaintiff to produce her Facebook account for a period of approximately nine years, covering time both pre-accident and post-accident. Relying on the reasons of Heeney J. in Stewart v. Kempster, 2012 ONSC 7236, Leitch J. determined that the Plaintiff had a privacy interest in the Facebook postings and that the Defendant had not satisfied the Court that there was relevant documentation in those Facebook posts.

[43] The Plaintiffs directed my attention to the decision of Brown J. (as he then was) in Leduc v. Roman 2009 CanLII 6383 (ONSC). That case was an appeal from the decision of Master Dash. The Defendants sought disclosure of Facebook pages that had been preserved. Master Dash determined that the Defendant bore the onus of demonstrating that the Plaintiff had relevant materials on his Facebook page. Master Dash found that the Defendant had not satisfied this onus and declined to order production of any of the Facebook pages.

[44] Brown J. reversed the Master’s decision and began by observing that it is beyond controversy that a person’s Facebook profile may contain documents relevant to a legal action. Brown J. went on to state (at para 32):

[32] A party who maintains a private, or limited access, Facebook profile stands in no different position than one who sets up a publicly-available profile. Both are obliged to identify and produce any postings that relate to any matter in issue in an action. Master Dash characterized the defendant’s request for content from Mr. Leduc’s private profile as “a fishing expedition”, and he was not prepared to grant production merely by proving the existence of the plaintiff’s Facebook page. With respect, I do not regard the defendant’s request as a fishing expedition. Mr. Leduc exercised control over a social networking and information site to which he allowed designated “friends” access. It is reasonable to infer that his social networking site likely contains some content relevant to the issue of how Mr. Leduc has been able to lead his life since the accident.

[45] Although these decisions speak to Facebook, I am of the view that they can be applied to social media accounts more generally. When these decisions are considered together, a number of competing principles emerge. First, there is a party’s privacy interest, which protects disclosure of irrelevant documents and protects that party from overbroad disclosure requests. In other words, the Defendant’s overly broad request in Jones would have required the disclosure of clearly irrelevant documents. Second, there is the fact that the Plaintiff has an obligation to disclose relevant documents to the Defendants. The privacy interests of a Plaintiff usually yield when the documents are relevant and not caught by privilege.

[46] In this case, Mr. Muzzo has advised on discovery that his social media accounts were all deleted very shortly after this accident because of privacy concerns. Mr. Muzzo also advised that he did not have any posts on his social media that were relevant.

[47] This assertion is not a complete answer to the Plaintiffs’ requests. The Plaintiffs are entitled to test that assertion by being provided with Mr. Muzzo’s usernames for his various social media accounts. Further, given that Mr. Muzzo was in Miami from the Thursday before the accident through to the Sunday of the accident, the Plaintiffs are entitled to social media posts that were made in this time period if they still exist. This second direction is based on my conclusion that the entirety of the trip to Miami is relevant to the issues in dispute. From that, I infer that any posts that Mr. Muzzo may have made during the trip to Miami will likely be relevant to the issues in dispute in this case. Therefore, if they exist they must be disclosed.

[48] However, the problem with the Plaintiffs’ request is that they are seeking documentation for the entire period from 2012 to the present. Again, this is a period that is very similar to what was sought in Jones. It is overbroad and I have no basis before me to conclude that there are either records from 2012 or that they are relevant to the issues in this action.

[49] Counsel for the Plaintiff suggested that I should read this request as being for any “relevant” posts from 2012 forward. The problem with this suggestion is that there is no evidence before me that there would be relevant documents from 2012 forward. I am prepared to accept the possibility that photographs or other records from the trip to Miami exist, especially since Mr. Muzzo deleted his social media accounts very shortly after the accident. However, without more information, I am not prepared to accept that any other relevant posts exist.

[50] I have set out the disposition of the specific disputes in the chart that is Appendix “A” to these reasons.

Issue #4- Statements to Police and the Court and Mr. Muzzo’s Incarcerations.

[51] Counsel for Mr. Muzzo refused to produce these documents on two grounds. First, that they were a collateral attack on the sentencing decision and second that they were not relevant because they were all past the date of the sentencing hearing and therefore not relevant to the issues in dispute. I have already dealt with the first issue and concluded that the Defendant cannot, at this stage, avoid disclosure on that basis.

[52] This brings me to the second issue, which is the question of whether the documents are irrelevant because they were all created after the sentencing hearing. Counsel for the Plaintiffs argues that these documents are all relevant because the entirety of the criminal proceeding is in dispute. On the Plaintiff’s theory of the case, the consideration of punitive damages would extend not only to the sentence, but to the question of whether the entirety of the punishment inflicted on Mr. Muzzo was a sufficient replacement for punitive damages.

[53] On its face, there are significant challenges with this argument. Punishment was imposed on sentencing, and it is difficult to see how post-sentencing documentation is relevant to whether the sentence was sufficient. However, it is possible that an argument could be made, and this is neither a Rule 20 motion nor a Rule 21 motion. On that basis, I am directing that the documents be produced.

Next Steps

[54] Ricchetti J. has already directed that the parties are to complete any further examination by no later than the end of October of 2022. At the outset of argument, I confirmed that the parties had agreed on October 30th or 31st, 2022 for continued discovery and the parties are directed to conduct the discovery on the agreed-upon date.

[55] The parties are reminded of Ricchetti R.S.J.s direction that, if requested, a date will be provided to the parties to deal with any issues that may flow from the continued discovery. That date should be requested promptly after the discoveries take place.

Conclusion and Costs

[56] For the foregoing reasons, I have determined that the Defendant Mr. Muzzo must provide answers to the questions that were refused as set out in Appendix “A” attached to these reasons. Those questions are all to be answered within fourteen (14) calendar days of today’s date. I am making the following additional orders:

a) The Defendant Mr. Muzzo is to re-attend at discoveries on October 30th or 31st, 2022.

b) If a further date is needed to address issues arising from the further discovery, the parties are to promptly request that date from Ricchetti R.S.J.

[57] The parties were directed to file costs outlines during the course of the hearing. I have not yet received those costs outlines. They are to be filed on Caselines and provided to my judicial assistant forthwith.

[58] The Plaintiffs and the Defendant Mr. Muzzo are encouraged to agree on the costs of this motion. Failing agreement, the Plaintiffs shall provide their costs submissions within fourteen (14) calendar days of the release of these reasons. Those costs submissions are to be no longer than three (3) single-spaced pages exclusive of bills of cost, offers to settle and case-law.

[59] The Defendant Mr. Muzzo shall have a further fourteen (14) calendar days to provide their costs submissions. Again, those costs submissions are to be no longer than three (3) single-spaced pages exclusive of bills of cost, offers to settle and case-law.

[60] There are to be no reply submissions without leave of the Court. There are also to be no extensions on the deadlines for costs submissions even on consent without my leave. If I do not receive costs submissions in accordance with the timetable set out above, there will be no costs.

[61] Given that not other party participated in this motion, no costs shall be awarded for or against any of the other parties.

LEMAY J

Released: October 7, 2022

REFUSALS AND UNDERTAKINGS CHART

schedule “A” to the reasons of October 7, 2022

Refusals

Questions refused at the examination of Marco Muzzo on November 9, 2019

Issue & relationship to the pleadings or affidavit

Q #

P #

Specific question

Answer or precise basis for refusal

Disposition by the Court

CATEGORY #5 – MARCO’S HISTORICAL ALCOHOL USE, DRINKING IN MIAMI, AND INDICIA OF INTOXICATION

1. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

386

78, line 5

Whether the Defendant was drunk the entire weekend

REFUSAL

Only 24 hours prior to accident relevant.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

2. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

387

78, line 22

Whether the drinking started as soon as the Defendant boarded the plane on Thursday morning

REFUSAL

Only 24 hours prior to accident relevant.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

3. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

458

90, line 4

Whether the Defendant was using energy drinks like Red Bull or any kind of stimulants while he was in Miami

REFUSAL

Only 24 hours prior to accident relevant.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

CATEGORY #6 – PAST DRIVING INFRACTIONS INCLUDING SPEEDING

4. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

444

88, line 3

Whether the Defendant makes it a practice to drive over the speed limit frequently

REFUSAL

Collateral attack on Fuerst J.’s sentencing decision.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

5. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

445

88, line 13

Whether the Defendant routinely drives over the speed limit

REFUSAL

Collateral attack on Fuerst J.’s sentencing decision.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

6. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

730

141, line 16

How many demerit points did the Defendant receive for his convictions for speeding

REFUSAL

Collateral attack on Fuerst J.’s sentencing decision.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

CATEGORY #7 – SOCIAL MEDIA

7. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

754

145, line 14

To advise of the Defendant’s private email account

REFUSAL

Relevance.

This refusal is to be answered. Counsel for the Plaintiffs rightly points out that this information will be relevant when cross-examining friends of the Defendant Marco Muzzo at trial. It will also be of assistance in assessing the documentation

8. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

1057

200, line 12

To provide a list of the Defendant’s usernames and any and all social media accounts that the Defendant advised have been scrubbed, and to produce copies of all social media accounts including photographs, videos and posts from 2012 to present

REFUSAL

Relevance, overbroad.

This question is overbroad. The answers that are required are limited to what is set out in the decision.

9. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

1079

219, line 8

To produce the Defendant’s Apple ID data

REFUSAL

Relevance.

Refusal is proper. The information that would be obtained from an Apple ID data is, as described at page A827 of the master bundle, very detailed. It includes such things as the records of purchases for Itunes, all contacts, all usage information. Most of this information would be irrelevant and the request is very intrusive. Request denied for the reasons set out in the decision in Jones.

10. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

1086

221, line 10

To advise of the Defendant’s Facebook username

REFUSAL

Relevance.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

11. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

1095

223, line 21

To advise of the Defendant’s Instagram username

REFUSAL

Relevance.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

CATEGORY #8: MARCO’S STATEMENTS TO POLICE AND THE COURT, AND HIS INCARCERATION

12. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

594

113, line 25

To produce the written submissions and Parole Canada file related to the Defendant’s parole review

REFUSAL

Relevance, collateral attack on Fuerst J.’s sentencing decision.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

13. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

680

131, line 17

To produce the records of the Defendant’s Case Manager at Gravenhurst

REFUSAL

Relevance, collateral attack on Fuerst J.’s sentencing decision.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

14. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

1058

201, line

15, 18

To produce a copy of the Defendant’s incarceration assessment and plan

REFUSAL

Relevance, collateral attack on Fuerst J.’s sentencing decision.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

15. Liability, Punitive / Exemplary / Aggravated Damages

Statement of Claim, at paras 34, 36, 77-82

677

130, line 13

To produce the records of Dr. Sheridan

REFUSAL

Relevance, collateral attack on Fuerst J.’s sentencing decision.

For the reasons given in the main decision, this refusal is to be answered.

COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-4172-00

DATE: 2022 10 07

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

JENNIFER NEVILLE-LAKE, EDWARD LAKE, JOSEPHINE NEVILLE by her Litigation Guardian Jennifer Neville-Lake, ESTATE OF HARRISON NEVILLE-LAKE by his litigation administrator JENNIFER NEVILLE-LAKE, AND MILAGROS NEVILLE-LAKE by her litigation administrator JENNIFER NEVILLE LAKE

Plaintiffs

• and -

MARCO Michael MUZZO, AYRFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED o/a MAREL CONTRACTORS, ZUM AVIATION INC., SKYSERVICE AIRLINES INC., SKYSERVICE INVESTMENTS INC., SKYSERVICE BUSINESS AVIATION INC., LINDA FRACCARO, CHAD COLLINS, and JAMES BONNELL

Defendants

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LEMAY J

Released: October 7, 2022