Papanicolaou et al. v. Maurizio Privitera et al., 2026 ONSC 311

CITATION: Papanicolaou et al. v. Maurizio Privitera et al., 2026 ONSC 311

COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00714665-0000

DATE: 20261027

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

JOHN PAPANICOLAOU and CHRISTINE PAPANICOLAOU

Plaintiffs

– and –

MAURIZIO PRIVITERA, MGP CONSTRUCTION GROUP, NADIA ZANNELLA and JENNIFER PANNOZZO

Defendants

Shane Greaves, for the Plaintiffs

Maurizio Privitera and Jenniffer Pannozzo appearing in person

HEARD: In writing

REASONS FOR DECISION

JOHN CALLAGHAN J.

1The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages arising out of a failed renovation project. This is a motion for default judgment against Mr. Privitera and MGP Consulting Group.

Procedural Background

2The defendants were noted in default on March 26, 2024. The claim against Nadia Zannella is stayed under s. 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3. The remaining defendants were served with materials seeking default judgment on May 3, 2024.

3The remaining defendants brought a motion to set aside the noting in default. There followed several attendances before this Court culminating in a decision of Justice Brownstone. Without repeating the findings, it is sufficient to point out that the motion to set aside the noting in default was denied as against Mr. Privitera and MGP Consulting Group. It was granted as it relates to Ms. Pannozzo. This motion for default judgment was then ordered to proceed in writing as against Mr. Privitera and MGP Consulting Group.

4MGP Consulting Group is a business name under which Mr. Privitera operates as a sole proprietor. Under r. 8.07, where a person operates under a business name, an action may be commenced under that name. Here, both the business name of the sole proprietorship and the sole proprietor have been named as defendants. It is the actions of Mr. Privitera which will determine liability for both, as he and MGP Consulting Group are one and the same. However, in these reasons, I have used both his name and the business name as they were presented that way both as a matter of contract and as pled.

5It is alleged that the other defendants carried on business with Mr. Privitera, although it is not clear in what capacity.

Default Judgment

6As Mr. Privitera and MGP Consulting Group have been noted in default, the allegations of fact in the statement of claim are admitted. Even where facts are admitted, the motions judge is still required to scrutinize the admitted facts and any evidence to determine if the requested judgment is warranted. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Paul’s Transport Inc. v. Immediate Logistics Limited, 2022 (ONCA) 573:

The motion judge is entitled to scrutinize both the deemed admissions in the pleading and any evidence tendered by the plaintiff to see whether the plaintiff is entitled to judgment: Salimijazi, at para. 28. (at para. 77).

7Conclusions of law or of mixed fact and law are not deemed admissions as a result of a failure to defend. As stated in Paul’s Transport, “judgment is not to be given unless the facts deemed to be admitted ‘entitle the plaintiff to judgment’” (at para. 80).

8In this case, there are the admissions in the statement of claim and an affidavit of John Papanicolaou, one of the homeowners.

Facts

9In July 2022, the plaintiffs retained Mr. Privitera (and as pled, the other defendants) operating through his business MGP Consulting Group to renovate their home (the “Agreement”). The renovations included renovating bedrooms/bathrooms, a new kitchen, new floors and a new back deck (the “Project”). Mr. Privitera presented a quote and represented MGP Consulting Group had the skill to perform the necessary work.

10The parties agreed that the renovations would be completed by December 15, 2022, for a total price of $270,000 plus tax less $35,000, being the same amount as the tax. The Agreement provided that MGP Consulting Group would be the project manager and would:

(a) source all subcontractors, suppliers and materials (section 2.2(e));

(b) “act honestly and in good faith in the Client’s best interests” (section 2.2(h));

(c) provide the services in a timely and diligent manner (section 2.4); and

(d) prepare a schedule to establish milestone dates for the client (section 3.1(a))

11The work did not progress as planned and the work was poorly performed. Assertions by Mr. Privitera that the work would be properly performed in a timely manner were not met. Subcontractors left the job site because they were not paid.

12A report from a home inspector identified several deficiencies with the work.

13Although the plaintiffs paid a $130,000 deposit, the Project never came close to completion. The plaintiffs were provided with a false invoice to suggest the $130,000 deposit had been exhausted when it had not been.

14The plaintiffs terminated the Agreement in December 2022 and retained new contractors.

15The plaintiffs obtained estimates for the remediation of the work already performed and the work to complete the Project. The plaintiffs then proceeded to remediate and complete the Project.

16Building Integrity was retained to remediate and complete the Project, although with a reduced scope of work, for $335,598.50. The plaintiffs incurred an additional $30,284.00 to Pronto Construction to complete the necessary framing for the Project. In addition, a third contractor, K-Mac Contracting, was paid $33,500 to remediate and to build a deck which had been begun but which was poorly built and not finished.

17The plaintiffs further incurred:

(a) extra storage costs incurred by the Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,163.95 resulting from the six-month delay in completing the project;

(b) $2,257.74 as the cost of re-purchasing balcony doors damaged by the Defendants; and

(c) $508.50 as the cost of the Home Inspection Report.

18In total, the plaintiffs incurred $534,312 to remediate and complete the project, including the deposit to the defendants. The Agreement was to complete the Project for $270,000. The plaintiffs have incurred $264,312 more to complete the Project than contracted for in the Agreement.

Analysis

19The plaintiffs have established by the admissions in the statement of claim and the evidence of Mr. Papanicolaou that there was a breach of the Agreement. MGP Consulting Group failed to complete the Project in a timely manner and in a good and workmanlike fashion. I am satisfied that MGP Consulting Group is in breach of the Agreement. As noted, any breach of the sole proprietorship is the responsibility of Mr. Privitera.

20There was also a claim for negligence in the performance of the work. As I have found that there was a breach of contract and the damages claimed are identical, there is no need to proceed with that analysis.

21The Agreement provided that the Project was to be completed for $270,000 but the plaintiffs ended up paying $534,312, including remediation and expenses. They seek damages of $264,312, being the additional costs.

22The pleading and evidence establish that the plaintiffs incurred costs both to rectify the shoddy work and to complete the Project. The plaintiffs have provided the necessary back-up to establish those amounts. The plaintiffs are entitled to be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed.

23The plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment in the amount of $264,312 plus pre- and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act as against Mr. Privitera and MGP Consulting Group.¹

24The plaintiffs are also entitled to partial indemnity costs. I find that the costs claimed in the amount of $10,3014 are fair and reasonable and within the reasonable contemplation of the defendants.

25A draft order may be submitted for the court’s consideration.

Callaghan J.

Footnotes

1. 1While MGP Consulting Group is not a legal entity, the rules provide that a sole proprietorship may be sued in its business name and that any judgment may be enforced in the same manner as a partnership: r. 8.07(2). That is, the judgment may be enforced “against the property of the sole proprietorship, i.e., the property employed in the business” : Garry D. Watson, Q.C., Derek McKay, Holmested and Watson: Ontario Civil Procedure, (Scarborough: Carswell, 2024), ch. 23 at para. 13. Such a judgment is duplicative of the judgment against the sole proprietor, being Mr. Privitera who is also responsible for the debts and judgments of his sole proprietorship.