Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: JJJJ'S Inc., Plaintiff
AND:
Jacob Avolio; Adrian Avolio; Robert Levitt, AKA Robbie Levitt; 1001296316 Ontario Inc., Other c.o.b. as National Jewellers; Vahe Baghoomian, Defendants
BEFORE: .
COUNSEL: John Philpott and James Zibarras, for the Plaintiff
Sarah Walker and Emma Pandy-Szekeres, for the Defendants Jacob and Adrian Avolio
Yupei (Summer) Xia and Wendy Greenspoon Soer, for the Defendants National Jewellers, Robbie Levitt, and Vahe Baghoomian
HEARD: February 9, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1The parties have corresponded regarding how the material may be reviewed by the ISS, including what categories of documents the plaintiff is seeking to review. The defendants proposed trying to reach agreement on terms; they also proposed a schedule for delivery of affidavits of documents, exchange of productions, and a schedule for the motion to set aside the Order. The defendants note that the seized evidence remains in the hands of the ISS which can be instructed in due course as to what it may need to review, by counsel or the Court.
2This case conference was held on the morning of February 9, 2026, having been scheduled on January 23, 2026. I am told that the plaintiff delivered proposed terms for the search of records by the ISS late on Friday afternoon, February 6, 2026.
3The plaintiff seeks a direction that the ISS may commence reviewing the evidence seized.
4The defendants object. They take a number of positions. They say the Order does not permit review and observe that the standard provision preventing review was inexplicably not included in the draft Order provided to me. The defendants wish to schedule their motion to set aside the Order. At the same time, however, the defendants complain that they require time to consider the search terms provided on February 6, suggesting there may be room for compromise. The defendants also ask for a schedule for exchange of affidavits of documents and production.
5My objective is to provide directions that will provide the parties with an efficient path forward that respects their substantive and procedural rights.
6First, I decline the plaintiff’s request to have the ISS begin reviewing the evidence seized. The evidence is voluminous and much of it is likely irrelevant and may also be personal and private information. It is well-recognized that the purpose of an Anton Piller Order is to preserve evidence that might otherwise be destroyed by an unscrupulous defendant. The plaintiff recognized this in its factum. That purpose has been achieved; the material is in the hands of the ISS, and securely remains there.
7Second, it is not clear to me that the Order permits review, and I have concerns about the removal of the clause in the “model order” that prevents review of the seized evidence. The ex parte request for the Order was considered by me in writing and while I was provided with a black-line comparison of the proposed Order and the “model order” showing the deletion, this change was not otherwise drawn to my attention or explained.
8In Path Network, Inc. v. Gervais, 2023 ONSC 4938 at para. 14, this Court found that the plaintiff does not have an automatic right to access evidence seized on a motion to set aside an Anton Piller Order. I agree. An Anton Piller Order is, essentially, a civil search warrant and the rights of the parties subjected to the Order must be carefully safeguarded.
9The defendants have proposed an expedited schedule for exchange of affidavits of documents and records. Production will inform the scope of any ultimate review of the records seized. The plaintiff has now proposed search terms which the defendant needs to consider. The parties, acting reasonably, will need to confer and hopefully agree on search terms in the discovery process in any event.
10It is appropriate, therefore, to direct an expedited schedule for the exchange of affidavits of documents and production. As proposed by the defendants, the parties shall exchange affidavits of documents and make production by March 31, 2026.
11The ISS will continue to retain the material seized pursuant to the Order.
12I decline to set a schedule for the motion to set aside the Order at this time. The Order has been executed, but the material seized has all been copied and the original material has all been returned to the defendants. The ISS is not reviewing the material. The harm from the seizure at this stage is therefore limited; whatever harm has been done cannot, at this stage, be undone. At the same time there is no additional harm to the defendants’ rights because no one has access to the material held by the ISS, and the defendants have had all material returned to them and have full access to their own records and computers. I therefore see no urgency to such a motion and question the utility of moving forward with it at this time in light of the need for production which shall happen soon.
13This does not mean that the defendants are without remedies if it is ultimately determined that the Order was obtained improperly or should otherwise not have been issued. As observed by Browne-Wilkinson V-C in Dormeuil Frères SA et al. v. Nicolian International (Textiles) Ltd., [1988] 3 All E.R. 197 (Ch.D.) at 199, quoted with approval by Wilton-Siegel J. in Bell Express Vu Limited Partnership v. Echostar Satellite LLC, 2008 12837 (ON SC), this issue is “normally much better dealt with at the trial by the trial judge” who can consider, among other things, whether the plaintiff should be liable for damages. Nevertheless, depending on how the litigation unfolds, the defendants may renew their request for their motion to be heard prior to trial; but at this stage, in light of the timetable for productions, it is in my view not efficient or appropriate to hear the motion at this time.
Schabas J.
Date: February 11, 2026