Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-21-00663592-0000
Date: 2025-01-30
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
Maurizio Sprovieri (Plaintiff)
– and –
James Christopher Demetriou a.k.a. James Demetriou a.k.a. Jim Chris Demetriou a.k.a. Jim C. Demetriou a.k.a. Jim Chris Demetriou a.k.a. Demetri Demetriou a.k.a. Demetrious Demetriou a.k.a. Demetrios Demetriou (Defendant)
Appearances:
Daniel Litsos and Howard Manis, for the Plaintiff
Kris Borg-Oliver, for the Defendant
Heard: November 27, 2024
Released: January 30, 2025
Judge: Papageorgiou J.
Reasons for Judgment
[1] The plaintiff and defendant became friends in 2000, when they started working together at the Woodbine Casino. They went to each other’s weddings, shared the births of their children, and traveled together.
[2] The plaintiff loaned approximately $168,000 to the defendant many years ago.
[3] The plaintiff provided evidence of the advance of the loans and detailed evidence and calculations that show that as of August 5, 2022, the total amount outstanding on such loans, inclusive of the contractual interest rate of 10 percent, was $314,278.52. He says that he used his home equity line of credit to loan the funds and that he is in serious financial jeopardy because of the defendant’s failure to repay the loans.
[4] The defendant filed no evidence disputing any of this. His position is that irrespective, the matter is statute barred pursuant to the Limitations Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 24, Sch B ("Limitations Act").
[5] The plaintiff asserts that he fits within certain provisions of the Limitations Act, such that this matter is not statute-barred.
[6] There are cross-motions for summary judgment before me and both parties agreed to have this dispute decided by way of summary judgment.
[7] Given that the defendant did not dispute the plaintiff’s evidence that the financial transactions between them are loans and that these are in default, the plaintiff would be entitled to summary judgment absent the limitation period issue in the amount claimed. Notably, the defendant’s counsel advised that he took no issue with the calculations presented as to the amount owed.
[8] One of the plaintiff’s arguments is that his claim was not discoverable.
[9] In reliance on s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, the plaintiff argues that having regard to the nature of the loss, he did not know that an action would be an appropriate way to address the loss until sometime after June 8, 2019. He also argues that a reasonable person with his abilities and in his circumstances would not have known that a proceeding was an appropriate means to seek a remedy until June 8, 2019. This would mean that the limitation period was not expired at the time of the issuance of the claim on June 7, 2021.
[10] One of the plaintiff’s arguments in support of this is that the defendant had commenced an action against an insurer, AIG Insurance Co. In that proceeding, the defendant alleged that a ring worth $550,000 was stolen from him during a trip in 2015. He sued and obtained summary judgment in that proceeding on January 24, 2019. AIG subsequently appealed the decision. On October 22, 2019, the appeal was granted such that the summary judgment was reversed, and the matter was sent to trial.
[11] The plaintiff says that the defendant’s plan to repay the loans was contingent on the outcome of this action. On several occasions, the defendant referred to the AIG action as the “big thing” that would allow him to repay all indebtedness owed to him.
[12] Here, there is a conflict in the evidence. The defendant denies that he ever told the plaintiff that he would use the proceeds of this lawsuit to pay back the outstanding amounts.
[13] I am unable to resolve this issue on this record and direct that this issue proceed to a mini trial before me. The parties may arrange a case conference to schedule this.
Papageorgiou J.
Released: January 30, 2025
Cited Legislation
Cited Case Law
(None cited in this decision)