OffshoreAlert
Daily news, documents and intelligence about Offshore Financial Centers and those who conduct business in them that you will not find anywhere else.
RSS Feed Print
Jordan Bionda
Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/24/2009 6:49:59 PM

By: boxman, Colorado

Jordan Bionda is the Bernie Madoff of Canada

look at this deposition in a court

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

1530495 ONTARIO INC.


Applicant
- and -


JORDAN BIONDA also known as JORDI BIONDA, also known as JORDY BIONDA, MARCIA MACKESY also known as MARIE MACKESY


Respondent

- - - - - - - - - -

This is the Cross-Examination of JORDAN BIONDA, one of the respondents herein, on his affidavit, taken at the offices of Lee, Roche, Kelly, in Bracebridge Ontario by Legal Reporting Services, on the 11th day of May, 2007.

- - - - - - - - - -

APPEARANCES:

M. A. REID for the Applicant

D. ZELDIN, Esq. for the Respondent


ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: David Miotto.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

J. BIONDA Examination
by MR. ZELDIN pages 3 to 118

- - - - -

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NUMBER DESCRIPTION FOUND ON PAGE NO.

1 E-mail dated October 3, 2006 75

2 E-mail dated May 22nd, 2003. 83

3 E-mail dated September 30th, 2003. 85

4 Document dated August 14th, 2003. 86

5 Affidavit of Marcia Mackesy, 101
dated May 8th, 2007.

6 E-mail dated September 17th, 2004. 104

- - - - - - -

REFUSALS can be found on pages: 26, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 44, 46, 51, 53, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66, 70, 73, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 104, 105, 106, 108, 1l0, 115, 116, 117.


- - - - - - - -





THE DEPONENT: I’m just curious as to what David does for the numbered company?
1. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, I wished – we’re on the record. It’s my examination. Please swear your client.
MR. REID: Well, my client would feel better if David Miotto wasn’t here.
2. MR. ZELDIN: Well, it’s a corporate entity. The Corporation can designate as its representative. He has knowledge of all of the events and it’s not his – it’s not even his examination, so he’s entitled – so, essentially, it’s the Corporate entity which is the applicant in this case, is entitled to designate who it wants and the case law suggests that their concern is when there is a representative of the company being examined, that the person be someone who actually has knowledge of events. So if you -
MR. REID: But -
3. MR. ZELDIN: And so, essentially, what I’m telling you is that if you’re trying to make an argument at this point or an objection, it is not your objection to make. The Corporation is entitled to designate who it wants and, moreover and above, he has full knowledge of all these events and -
MR. REID: But I mean someone who’s being examined doesn’t have to subject themselves to anyone coming in off the street to listen in to the examination.
4. MR. ZELDIN: He’s far from anyone off the street. He’s a person with full knowledge of the events who’s been designated by the Corporation to be here today.
MR. REID: It’s not the situation where he’s been designated for questioning. He’s actually observing someone else being examined.
5. MR. ZELDIN: He’s here to provide instructions to the Corporation’s solicitor by virtue of his knowledge of the events and by virtue of the authority given to him by the company.
MR. REID: Well, let me just talk to my client about that.
6. MR. ZELDIN: I will indicate right now on the record that if your client does not wish to proceed with Mr. Miotto here, his refusal to answer questions will be at his peril. We can go off the record so you can have a moment.
(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

MR. REID: Mr. Bionda and I have conferred about the issue. As much as he would prefer to have Elio Miotto here as the person he understands to be the sole shareholder and directing mind of the numbered company that’s the applicant in this matter, he is prepared to proceed with David Miotto present in the room. Now, on that basis, I will swear in Mr. Bionda.

JORDAN BIONDA: Affirmed
EXAMINATION BY MR. ZELDIN
7. Q. Okay, sir, you provided your affirmation. Do you recognize that it has the same force and effect as if you swore an oath?
A. That’s what I just did, the affirmation.
8. Q. I’m asking you a question. Do you recognize that it has the same force and effect as an oath?
A. Are we talking about the affirmation I just did?
9. Q. Yes. Yes, we are. That was my question.
A. Then my answer is yes.
10. Q. Okay, what’s you address?
A. 255 Allison’s Point Road, Huntsville, Ontario.
11. Q. And what’s the postal code there?
A. P1H 1B5.
12. Q. And what’s your full name?
A. Didn’t I just give my full name.
13. Q. Is it Jordan Bionda?
A. I’ve already sworn what my name is.
14. Q. Counsel, maybe you can help me out? Is there a middle name?
A. My full name I just gave.
15. Q. Well, what’s your full name, sir?
A. My full name is Jordan Bionda.
16. Q. Do you have a middle name?
A. No.
17. Q. Okay, why are you being difficult about that, sir?
A. I – I swore at the start, sir, that my name was Jordan Bionda and you’ve asked me three times what my full name is.
18. Q. I’m asking you why you’re being difficult. I had to ask you three times because you’ve been cagey about it. And have you always resided in Huntsville, Ontario?
A. No.
19. Q. Where else have you resided, sir?
A. I’ve resided in the United States. I resided in British Columbia. I’ve resided in various – various places. I’m 46 years old.
20. Q. Okay, and your date of birth is?
A. December 9th, 1960.
21. Q. And in what places in the United States have you resided?
A. In the State of Oregon.
22. Q. In what town?
A. I’m not sure. It was when I was three years old.
MR. REID: Can I ask how the history of his residence is relevant to this application?
23. MR. ZELDIN: Well, your client’s background is important. Your client claims to be a businessman. I want to get the most, by way of background, information regarding his experiences in life and regarding his education, which we’ll get to, and regarding his – his occupation. So where he’s resided and, essentially, a personal history is appropriate in my respectful opinion.
MR. REID: Well, to a degree but –
BY MR. ZELDIN:
24. Q. Okay, what – what other places have you resided in the United States, sir?
A. I don’t think any. As I said, I was three to five years old, so I’m not quite sure.
25. Q. Okay, that’s fine, but you were born here in Ontario?
A. No, I was not.
26. Q. Where were you born?
A. I was born in British Columbia.
27. Q. And did you ever reside there when you were an adult?
A. Um – relevance?
MR. REID: Well, can you just speed it up a bit with what – you want an understanding of what he does for a living.
28. MR. ZELDIN: I’ll get there. I’ll get there.
MR. REID: Okay.
29. MR. ZELDIN: Q. If we start from now, you’re residing now in Huntsville and for how long have you been residing in Huntsville?
A. Oh, a number of years, 10, 15 years, I don’t know.
30. Q. And can you be a little bit – I think the reporter wants us to keep our voices up.
BY THE REPORTER: There’s a background noise there.
31. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Can you be any more specific as to how long you resided in Huntsville?
A. Yes, actually, I think I resided off and on but I lived in Toronto for a few years. So I’ve resided in Huntsville since 2002 till present.
32. Q. And how long had you been in Toronto for?
A. I believe since 1995 or 1996.
33. Q. And where did you reside at that time when you were in Toronto?
A. I don’t remember. I lived in Rosedale. The address escapes me. It’s been some time.
34. Q. And before you lived in Toronto, where were you?
A. Huntsville.
35. Q. So you were in Huntsville for a stretch before Toronto?
A. That’s correct.
36. Q. And do you know – do you remember how long that stretch was, the pre-Toronto stretch?
A. Oh, it would be probably 15 years. I don’t – I can’t hit it right on the button.
37. Q. Have you lived anywhere else other than these places that you’ve told me about?
A. Not as a permanent resident, no.
38. Q. Where have you resided temporarily?
A. In Huntsville, I’ve resided temporarily at a few places. In Toronto at a few places.
39. Q. Mm, hmm. So you were in a few addresses while you were in Toronto?
A. Absolutely.
40. Q. Do you remember any of those addresses?
A. I do not.
41. Q. You don’t remember one place?
A. Not the exact address, no, I don’t.
42. Q. Do you remember the approximate area?
A. Yeah, York Mills and downtown, and on the outskirts of Rosedale as I indicated earlier.
43. Q. So you can’t recall your last address in Toronto even though it would have been about five – five years ago?
A. No, not the exact address.
44. Q. Do you remember the street?
A. Shady - Shady Road.
45. Q. Was it a house or an apartment?
A. It was a house.
46. Q. Did you own it?
A. No.
47. Q. Did you rent it?
A. Yes.
48. Q. Who did you rent it from?
A. I don’t recall.
49. Q. Who did you make the cheques payable to?
A. I don’t recall.
50. Q. Did you pay for it? Did you pay your rent?
A. I don’t recall. I’m sure I paid rent as I lived there.
51. Q. You’re writing a note, sir?
A. Yeah, I’m trying to remember things. I’m allowed to write notes to myself. Sometimes it sparks memory to help this process along.
52. Q. And where were you educated, sir?
A. What is this in relevance to in my affidavit, sir?
53. Q. You have a lawyer here and your lawyer is here to make objections if he sees fit on your behalf. I’m not going to enter into a debate with you.
MR. REID: Well, we registered an objection a few moments ago about going into an extensive background. I’ve given you some leeway -
54. MR. ZELDIN: Well, this is the first question I’ve asked about occupation and so I really can’t –
MR. REID: Well, education, I -
55. MR. ZELDIN: I really can’t see the problem with asking this gentleman’s education.
MR. REID: I don’t have a problem with him asking about your education, like as long as it’s brief and to the point and -
THE DEPONENT: I went to Huntsville High School.
56. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Do you remember when you graduated?
A. I didn’t graduate.
57. Q. How far did you go?
A. I was three and a half credits shy of grade 12.
58. Q. And that was some time ago when they still had grade 13, is that correct?
A. I’m not familiar with the school system.
59. Q. I see. So you don’t remember whether they had a grade 13 system at the time or not?
A. I didn’t – I – I left school before grade 12, I don’t know.
60. Q. After you left high school, did you – did you have any other formal education?
A. No.
61. Q. You were never enrolled in any courses?
A. No, not to my recollection.
62. Q. Okay, so what have you done after high school?
A. Can you be a little more specific?
63. Q. Did you go out into the work force after high school?
A. I’ve been self-employed pretty much my whole life or with a family business.
64. Q. Okay, what – what types of self-employment have you been in?
A. The restaurant business.
65. Q. Whereabouts?
A. In Huntsville.
66. Q. And did you operate a restaurant?
A. Between my family and myself, we’ve operated numerous restaurants.
67. Q. Did you ever own it?
A. I owned one restaurant.
68. Q. What restaurant was that?
A. It was a restaurant called The Pier.
69. Q. And when you say “the family”, what do you mean by your family?
A. My mother and father.
70. Q. When did you cease working in the restaurant business?
A. It’d be in the late 80’s.
71. Q. And so what did you do at that point when you stopped working in the restaurant business?
A. I worked for myself.
72. Q. Doing what?
A. Various businesses, primarily buy and sell.
73. Q. What do you buy and what do you sell?
A. I would go to auctions and buy whatever I felt was a good price on something that I could resell.
74. Q. And did you carry on business under a trade name or under a corporation?
A. Along the way, a few corporations but I – I can’t recall them now; and at some times I operated, depending on the situation, just out of pocket. Again, it was a long time ago.
75. Q. And what are you doing now? Is that a hard question? You’re taking a long time to – to answer.
A. Would you like me to answer in agreement to you speeding me up or would you like me to answer?
76. Q. I’m wondering why it’s a hard question to answer?
A. I’m considering the relevance of the question.
77. Q. Well, it’s highly relevant.
A. Why is it relevant to the -
78. Q. I’m not going to debate it with you. What do you -
MR. REID: Why don’t you just let him figure out in his mind how to describe what he does because it may be not the standard job and let him answer the question.
THE DEPONENT: Presently, I’ve been working on a business concept that requires a lot of work at home and so I’m not employed. I’m designing the concept.
79. MR. ZELDIN: Q. And what is – what is that concept?
A. It’s classified.
80. Q. Well, you have to answer it.
A. It’s in the high-tech and it has information that is – I don’t know the right word – just a second -
81. Q. No, Mr. Bionda, you have to answer the question. What are you doing? What kind of business is it that you’re doing right now?
MR. REID: You don’t need to give away classified information but you can try to describe -
THE DEPONENT: Well, I’m designing a – a computer gaming situation that is very classified and I won’t be giving away the contents of it. So I don’t understand the question.
82. MR. ZELDIN: Q. You understand it full well, sir.
MR. REID: It’s supposed to be questions of Mr. Bionda that -
THE DEPONENT: Is that an assumption?
83. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I’m suggesting to you you know full well what you’re doing -
A. Do you have any questions for me?
84. Q. - and you understand the question fully.
A. Do you have any questions other than assumptions?
85. Q. Mr. Bionda, I would suggest to you not – not to try to parry and just to answer the questions.
MR. REID: To be fair, Mr. Zeldin, you made a comment and if that inspired him to respond an adversarial way, perhaps if you don’t make any more comments to his answers -
86. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Well, what were you doing in – in or about the year 2000, sir, as an occupation?
A. I’m thinking at the moment. That’s seven years ago. I think I was looking for business opportunities.
87. Q. And what did you do after you looked for business opportunities?
A. I continue to look for business opportunities to this day.
88. Q. Okay, have you been in business since the year 2000?
A. Describe “business”?
89. Q. Well, you’ve told me you’re self-employed. Have you been working since the year 2000?
A. I work every day.
90. Q. And what do you do, what kind of work?
A. I look for opportunities for myself and if I like something I see, I either get involved; or, if it’s a buy and sell, I buy it, I resell it.
91. Q. What do you tell your wife that you do?
A. I don’t tell my wife anything I do; she sees. If I’m – I don’t know how to answer that, but I look for business opportunities.
92. Q. Do you have a resume?
A. No, I usually work for myself; therefore, I don’t need a resume.
93. Q. Well, what other businesses have you been involved in other than the ones you’ve told me about for the last seven years?
A. I’ve been in a number of business opportunities, businesses, none that – that -
94. Q. Can you keep your voice up? I can barely hear you now.
A. I said I’ve been in a number of business opportunities or businesses over the last few years, nothing specific.
95. Q. Do you support your family?
A. I do, when I can.
96. Q. So how do you support your family?
A. Well, in whatever business I’m involved in -
97. Q. Yes.
A. - I would assume I would make money and, therefore, support my family.
98. Q. Okay, so far you’ve told me absolutely nothing about any business that you’re in or any business opportunity. All you’ve – you’ve been as vague as the wind. What type of businesses have you been in in the last seven years?
A. I’ve been in various businesses in the last seven years.
99. Q. What are they?
A. As I stated earlier, buy and sell. If I see something that I want to buy I’ll buy it -
100. Q. Okay, I want you to name one business, one corporation, one company or a trade name that you’ve used?
A. I don’t – I don’t see the relevance of -
101. Q. Well, I do. Your wife says you’re a venture capitalist. What’s a venture capitalist?
A. Somebody who buys and sells and looks for opportunity and provides financing, if they see something they would like to finance.
102. Q. And that’s what you do?
A. I do various things. I buy and sell. I look for opportunities. If I see something I’d like to finance, I figure out the financing, look at – look for a profit for myself.
103. Q. Okay, what kind of businesses or opportunities have you financed?
A. I’ve financed various opportunities but that again -
104. Q. Mm, hmm, I knew you said you’ve done various opportunities. You haven’t given me one straight answer yet.
A. Is that opinion?
105. Q. Can you provide us with a little bit more detail?
A. No, I can’t. I cannot.
MR. REID: Why don’t you ask him about his business with Mr. Miotto?
106. MR. ZELDIN: Counsel, it’s my examination. I’ll conduct it as I see fit.
MR. REID: Well, it’s got to be relevant.
107. MR. ZELDIN: I’ve given him full opportunity to tell me about all the businesses he’s been in over the last seven years and he hasn’t told me one.
MR. REID: Well, I’ll tell you what our concern is for the record. There’s another lawsuit going on in Toronto which we would like to have consolidated with the Bracebridge applications which is not being consented to. So we’re not going to allow you to ask questions that assist with the Toronto action.
108. MR. ZELDIN: Well -
MR. REID: And I – it sounds a little bit like you’re fishing for examination in aid of execution.
109. MR. ZELDIN: Your client stated on several occasions in his affidavit sworn April 30th, 2000, sir, that he was in business with Elio.
MR. REID: So why don’t you ask him about the business with Elio?
110. MR. ZELDIN: I’ve given him full opportunity to tell me any type – about any type of business he’s been involved in.
MR. REID: Well I interpreted that to mean other business besides Elio, that’s -
111. MR. ZELDIN: Well, the witness understood fully. In any event -
THE DEPONENT: Is that -
112. MR. ZELDIN: I’m - I’m just going to advise right now that -
THE DEPONENT: You’re speaking for me again, sir. You suggested I understand something fully. You have no idea.
113. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I’m not going to argue with you, sir.
A. Then stop speaking for me, please.
114. Q. I will indicate that I’m going to press on with my questions and the record will speak for itself. Now, the business that you talked about in your material, that was the pool that you talked about?
A. Whereabouts in the - is it?
115. Q. Paragraph 24. Have you got a copy of your affidavit there?
A. I do.
116. Q. Okay, and it’s sworn April 30th, 2007?
MR. REID: It’s on the last page.
THE DEPONENT: It is.
117. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, and you swore – and when you swore it, you swore to tell the truth?
A. I - Yes -
118. Q. Okay, and you -
A. - of course.
119. Q. And you recognize you were taking an oath?
A. Of course.
120. Q. Okay, and you swore that before Mr. Reid?
A. I did.
121. Q. So you’re familiar with the document, are you?
A. I have it in my hand.
122. Q. Okay.
A. I’m reading it right now.
123. Q. Do you want to take a few moments to look it over?
A. No.
124. Q. Do you want to answer my question?
A. If you ask one.
125. Q. I did and you interrupted. You asked me where it said that you were in business with Elio, and I pointed out that it was -
A. Yeah, I’m waiting for your question.
126. Q. - paragraph 24.
A. Yes, but what was the question you’ve asked?
127. Q. Well, I asked if the – if it was the thing you called the pool? Is that the business you’re talking about with Elio?
A. In point 24?
128. Q. Yes, paragraph 24.
A. Just a moment -
129. Q. Okay, no. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
A. Am I not allowed to -
130. Q. You’re not allowed to speak to your lawyer right now.
A. Oh, I’m sorry. I thought that was the whole judicial process but that’s okay. Any business – this particular matter is pertaining to -
131. Q. I’m going to read out the last sentence for you, sir, to help you out. “To be specific, Elio was expecting to earn a profit of 2.2 million dollars from the investment we referred as The Pool.”
A. That’s correct.
132. Q. And I take it that should have read “which we referred to as The Pool”. Is that correct?
A. That is correct, point 24.
133. Q. So what is the pool, sir?
A. I have a problem with the line of questioning.
134. Q. No, no, if you have an objection, your lawyer will make it for you.
MR. REID: Well, I’m listening carefully at this point because again we don’t want to get into questions that are involved in the Toronto action; and the pool seems to be more the Toronto action. It’s more of a description in this – background information in this affidavit for the application.
135. MR. ZELDIN: He mentions it on several occasions in this affidavit. Part – his main defence, essentially, is that he doesn’t have to pay rent because of other business dealings with Elio; and I’m entitled to ask and, frankly, to be given full rein and free rein to ask whatever questions I want regarding these business opportunities and I will be -
MR. REID: But you -
136. MR. ZELDIN: - doing so in an effort to demonstrate that his affidavit is less than reliable.
MR. REID: Okay, well for the record, we would like to consolidate the Toronto action with the Bracebridge application. That is being resisted. I don’t think it’s fair for you to – for your client to resist that consolidation and yet be able to ask questions in this matter that can be used in the Toronto action. So there will -
137. MR. ZELDIN: Well, if you -
MR. REID: - only be background information provided which has more to do with the Toronto action.
138. MR. ZELDIN: Well, sir, if you have problems you can object to the questions. Until there’s an objection, I will persist in asking the question. I want an answer.
THE DEPONENT: Based on my – here’s your – here’s your answer, sir. Based on the line of questioning, I feel my rights are being violated due to my former attorney, Marcello DiFrancesco who has a great deal – has a great deal to do with this line of questioning and it’s been duly noted and seen and documented that Mr. DiFrancesco is working with Mr. Miotto and 1530495 Ontario Inc., which I believe violates my rights. So I decline to answer the question.
MR. REID: I think what he’s saying is that solicitor/client privilege has been violated and he’s – doesn’t want to answer questions in which he thinks information was obtained from his former lawyer.
THE DEPONENT: That is exactly what I mean.
139. MR. ZELDIN: Thank you. We’ll go off the record for a moment.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

140. R MR. ZELDIN: Q. So you’re objecting to answer any questions about the pool?
A. I’m objecting to answering any questions for which my former attorney who is now, in layman’s terms, sitting in your camp, that has anything to do with – anything that Marcello DiFrancesco has anything to do with -
141. Q. Well -
A. - which is every bit of business I’ve done with your clients. He is now noted, cited. He’s sitting in your camp. Call him what you want. Call him a confidante. Call him whatever you want but he’s working with Mr. Elio Miotto for sure. He sat with you in the previous two court situations. I saw it visually myself on the first one on April – in April 30th, and I didn’t attend May 8th and Mr. DiFrancesco was with your client again, speaking, talking with yourself. So, therefore, my rights are being violated.
142. Q. So you’re saying that because Mr. DiFrancesco spoke to me, your rights are being violated?
A. He didn’t speak to you, sir. He’s provided you information over and over and over again, as you know, and it’s isn’t speaking – he – when a tentative deal was being – on April 30th when your side took four hours to write a tentative settlement, as you called it, Mr. DiFrancesco was right in the middle of it and he was typing everything. He’s not speaking to you, sir. He’s working with you and you know it.
143. Q. So, I fail to see how you can’t answer questions here but we may be leaving that for a judge to consider.
A. I think that’s a great idea.
144. Q. Did you take a large amount of money from Elio and David Miotto?
A. I’ve never taken any money from David and, especially, a large money from David and Elio Miotto – it’s Miotto, not Miotto.
145. Q. If you forgive my pronunciation, sir, did Elio ever send money to any companies or any persons based upon anything you said?
A. Can you say the question again, please?
146. Q. Did Mr. – did Elio Miotto - and forgive the pronunciation – ever provide any funds based upon something you said regarding an investment?
A. I have never seen anything from Mr. Miotto, any funds sent to me based – I’ve never seen any paperwork, anything sent to me and I’ve never accepted anything from Mr. Miotto except a $15,000.00 cheque that I had directed to my - my common-law wife, Marcia Mackesy, and that’s the only monies I’ve accepted from Elio Miotto.
147. Q. Okay. What about the monies that Mr. Miotto and David Miotto caused to be invested in a so-called pool?
A. I can’t comment on that but I think you should check with Marcello DiFrancesco because I never received such monies from either -
148. Q. No, I’m not talking about you personally, sir. Did you instruct Mr. DiFrancesco to send monies to Prima Verde?
A. No, I’ve – I cannot – no, I did not and, again, anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, I’ll not be commenting on as he’s my former lawyer who’s now disbarred since November, 2005, who is sitting in your camp, working against me.
149. Q. So, asfaras you’re concerned, how was Elio involved in this business if he never invested any funds?
A. I’m not sure. I think you should ask Mr. DiFrancesco.
150. Q. Okay. Let me just understand this more clearly. Maybe I’m not reading the English correctly in this affidavit. “By 2002, I had met Elio and we were in business together.” Do you see that in paragraph 17?
A. I do.
151. Q. So I’m not putting words in your mouth. You swore that that’s true, didn’t you?
A. Yes, I assumed we were in business together, and I’ll just add to that – and since this lawsuit, it is upon reflection there was a lot of trust going on; and, upon reflection, it has occurred to me that I’ve never seen any funds come from Elio or David Miotto or 1530495, so that’s my answer.
152. Q. Alright, that’s fine. So funds were never provided for you, on your behalf, at your request, at your instructions, is that what you’re saying?
A. Again, Marcello DiFrancesco is my lawyer who’s working – was my former lawyer. So I’m going to have to decline to answer that – that question. It’s a DiFrancesco-related question.
153. Q. Okay, so – so Elio didn’t advance $320,000.00. Is that what you’re saying?
A. I believe Mr. Miotto had $320,000.00 advanced but I’m unsure of where the funds came from but they did not come to me. So that’s quite – doesn’t really matter. If you’re talking about – what was the 320 for what you’re suggesting?
154. Q. It’s alright, sir. Now, I’m going to ask you again. Did you ever hear of a company called Prima Verde? I think it’s -
A. Prima Verde is nowhere in my - in my affidavit, sir.
155. R Q. You’ve never heard of that company?
A. It’s not in my – my affidavit, sir.
156. Q. Have you ever heard of that company? This is a cross-examination. I’m entitled to wide latitude. Have you ever heard of that company?
A. I believe, although I do not know, but it’s a Marcello DiFrancesco related incident; therefore, I decline to answer.
157. Q. Mm, hmm. I’m suggesting to you, sir, that you or your family incorporated a company called Prima Verde, isn’t that the case?
A. It’s a Marcello DiFrancesco related incident, sir.
158. Q. And when I say “Prima Verde”, it’s – I believe it’s Prima Verde Inc.
MR. REID: Can I just – does Prima Verde have anything to do with 255 Allison’s Point?
159. MR. ZELDIN: It’s got a lot to do with the pool. Your client has got the word “pool” all over this brief affidavit. He’s going to have answer questions about the pool. He’s going to have to answer questions about what’s this business that he’s involved in with Elio because that’s the essence of his defence, if you will, to this application.
MR. REID: Well, what he says in his affidavit is that “I was involved with Elio” -
160. MR. ZELDIN: Counsel, either – you’ve got to -
MR. REID: Well -
161. MR. ZELDIN: I know what he said in his affidavit.
MR. REID: Okay.
162. MR. ZELDIN: He says he’s involved in a business with Elio in a pool.
MR. REID: That’s right, okay.
163. MR. ZELDIN: And I want to know what’s the nature of this involvement, and I’m suggesting to you, sir, that you weren’t in business with Elio and that, in fact, you were running a fraud scheme and you were in the midst of defrauding Elio and ensuring that Elio never would be able to recover against you. And, in fact, you defrauded Elio and his brother who were investing funds in your fraudulent schemes.
THE DEPONENT: Are you asking me? I’ve heard a statement, are you asking -
164. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I put that to the witness.
A. You’re absolutely incorrect.
165. Q. Alright, so tell me about the pool then?
MR. REID: Okay, the objection to the pool, as stated before, is that has more to do with the Toronto action which is not part of this application. It’s provided as background information. How he was involved with Mr. Miotto -
166. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, that’s not good enough, counsel; and you know it as well, with respect.
MR. REID: Well, let’s consolidate them then.
167. MR. ZELDIN: Well, your client’s had ample opportunity to consolidate them. Your client chose not to defend the claim.
BY MR. ZELDIN:
168. R Q. Did you run a company called IFPA or International Financial Privacy Associations Limited, something like that?
A. I have no comment.
169. Q. You’ve got to answer the question, sir.
A. It’s a Marcello DiFrancesco related answer.
170. Q. It is not, sir. You ran a comp- a fraudulent scheme called International Financial Privacy Associations Limited.
A. Is that – is that an assumption, speculation?
171. Q. I want an answer to the question.
MR. REID: Does that company have anything to do with your client?
172. MR. ZELDIN: Yeah, it’s the type of occupation that this – that this man’s been involved with in the last seven years, the kind of occupation, the kind of a small business or company that he doesn’t want to tell me about and that he’s been very vague about. So I’m asking you – I’m giving you a chance to correct your answer no the record. Do you know anything about that company?
THE DEPONENT: I decline to answer on the grounds of my rights have been violated as my lawyer Marcello DiFrancesco is now sitting in your camp, as it be, and I’m – I’m - my solicitor/client privilege is being violated.
173. MR. ZELDIN: Off the record.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

174. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, I’m going to show you an e-mail or shall I say a letter which I understand may have been sent by e-mail and it’s Exhibit C to the affidavit of Elio Miotto.
MR. REID: Is this the new one or the old one?
175. MR. ZELDIN: Q. It’s the new one sworn May 9th, 2007. I want you to take a look at Exhibit C. And are you familiar with that letter?
A. Not as I’ve just seen it right now but I notice that it’s sent to Marcello DiFrancesco.
176. Q. And Jeff McCargar?
A. Yeah.
177. Q. Private message for Marcello DiFrancesco and Jeff McCargar, correct? You’ve got to answer with – verbally, sir?
A. I can see it, sir.
178. Q. Okay, I wanted to hear the answer on the record. Was Jeff McCargar your lawyer too?
A. Not that I’m aware of.
179. Q. Now, it indicates around the middle of the first page “Regarding X and our 1.5M participation”. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
180. R Q. What’s this letter about? Is this about the pool?
A. I have no comment as it’s a letter obviously sent to me in confidence to my lawyer; and, therefore, my – once again my rights have been violated.
181. Q. No, I’m suggesting to you that it wasn’t sent to you, it was sent by you?
A. Yes, it was sent in confidence to my lawyer, Marcello DiFrancesco.
182. Q. But Jeff McCargar isn’t your lawyer?
A. Yes, but he’s – we have full-bound confidentiality agreements. It’s a confidential document. It was sent to my lawyer and, therefore -
183. Q. So you’re not going to answer any questions about this, is that what you’re saying?
A. I cannot answer anything that -
184. Q. I’m sugg-
A. - where my rights have been violated, sir.
185. R Q. Okay, I’m going to suggest to you, sir, that this letter is part of your scam. This is a letter that you sent to suggest to people that they’re going to – that they’re making money on monies that they forwarded to your control. Isn’t that the case?
A. I’ve already answered on this document.
186. Q. Okay, so you won’t answer about that, will you? Is there anything in this letter that’s true?
A. I’ve already answered regarding this – this letter.
187. Q. No, you haven’t. You haven’t answered, sir.
188. MR. ZELDIN: Is your client going to stonewall the rest of the examination, Mr. Reid?
MR. REID: Well, I don’t know what the rest of your questions are but apparently he’s not going to answer any questions where he feels you obtained information from -
189. MR. ZELDIN: He’s barely answered any -
MR. REID: - from Marcello.
190. MR. ZELDIN: - any question with a straight answer, with respect.
THE DEPONENT: Is that an assumption again?
191. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I’m suggesting to you, sir, that you are in control of the money that Elio Miotto and David Miotto invested, are you not?
A. I am not.
192. Q. Okay, were you at – at any time?
A. No.
193. Q. Well, where did the money go?
A. Marcello DiFrancesco was in control of all of the Miotto’s money.
194. Q. Okay.
A. And so maybe you should check with him as he’s working with you.
195. R Q. Did you not instruct Marcello DiFrancesco to send these monies to bank accounts or banks designated by you?
A. I will not answer any questions regarding Marcello DiFrancesco who was my lawyer. Now he’s disbarred and he’s now working against me with the Miottos. My rights have been violated.
196. Q. I’m going to refer you, sir, to Exhibit J of Mr. Miotto’s affidavit of May 9th, 2007. Did you write that letter?
A. I notice that the letter is made out to Marcello DiFrancesco who was my former lawyer.
197. R Q. Yes.
A. Who is now working against me in your camp so I will not be answering anything that has Marcello DiFrancesco’s handprints all over -
198. Q. Okay, what about your letter of May 16th, 2005 which is attached?
MR. REID: Perhaps I can just shorten this matter. Mr. Bionda is not going to answer anymore questions that have to do with the subject matter of the Toronto action which is the pool. He mentioned pool in his affidavit because a little bit of background – his affidavit also goes on to indicate that Elio Miotto and himself came to a new agreement which involved a trip to Panama and new obligations on both of them, one of which was to pay rent.
199. MR. ZELDIN: Mm, hmm.
MR. REID: And that’s the subject matter of this dispute and we haven’t yet touched on the rent for 255 Allison’s Point.
200. MR. ZELDIN: That’s right, counsel, because it’s our position that the entire scheme and any agreements were essentially all part of fraudulent transactions and schemes run by Mr. Bionda; and I’m entitled to get at the truth the way we see fit. And if your client talks about a pool and the relationship of the pool, and any other transactions to - to the rental situation, I’m entitled to ask the questions in the manner I see fit.
MR. REID: He’s not going to answer -
201. MR. ZELDIN: And to lay the foundation for questioning regarding the rent.
MR. REID: Well, he’s not going to answer any more -
202. MR. ZELDIN: And in my respectful submission, your client is just attempting to stonewall this, for lack of a better word.
MR. REID: Well, there is an agreement attached to his affidavit that -
203. MR. ZELDIN: So -
MR. REID: - sets out a new comprehensive agreement between him and Mr. Miotto which amends the obligations from the pool. And he’ll start answering questions -
204. MR. ZELDIN: Well, the background is – is completely – and I will say the background is completely relevant, as you know. So, with respect –
BY MR. ZELDIN:
205. Q. Sir, wasn’t 1411187 Ontario Inc. essentially transferred to the Miottos?
A. Not with my permission.
206. Q. Oh, I see.
A. Ever with my permission – it was – I found out in 2006 that it was illegally done. I still, to this day, do not know who did it and I’m assuming it should have been Gabriella Pierantoni as she was the trustee on record and yet she’s never signed off, never communicated with me; and somehow through there, she appointed - as I’ve seen in various things - Marcello DiFrancesco. I see his name. I see Elio Miotto’s name, but I’ve never given permission and they essentially stole the company from myself.
207. Q. That’s your evidence?
A. My evidence? That’s my statement, sir. Evidence will be the trustee agreement and the lack of –
208. Q. Okay.
A. and the lack of evidence -
209. Q. So you’re -
A. - that DiFrancesco -
210. Q. So the documents -
A. I’m finishing -
211. Q. - that you’ve produced -
A. - answering the question, sir.
212. Q. The documents -
A. I’m finishing answer the questions.
213. Q. Okay, well go ahead.
A. And my evid-
214. Q. But try not to take long gaps between.
A. My evidence will be the trustee agreement and the declaration of trust I have from Gabriella Pierantoni – Pierantoni, who is Marcello DiFrancesco’s wife, who was the trustee, and the lack of evidence or any written submission of me giving her instructions to do anything with the company; and, therefore, it was stolen from me by apparently Mr. Elio Miotto and Mr. Marcello DiFrancesco.
215. Q. Wasn’t that part of the security, sir, that you were supposed to give and you, in fact, agreed to give -
A. No.
216. Q. - by virtue of the large investment the Miottos were making?
A. Absolutely not.
217. Q. Okay, so you deny that? You’ve got to give an answer on the record – I’m waiting.
A. Was that a question?
218. Q. You deny that -
A. Yes, I -
219. Q. - that was the case?
A. I said absolutely not. I thought that might have been clear.
220. Q. So you’re saying that because of that trust agreement, that you’re really the owner of that 141187 company?
A. I was the owner. I am the owner since I’ve never signed off on it -
221. Q. You never signed off on it?
A. - until – excuse me, I’ll finish the question, or finish the answer, until a series of agreements starting on February 8th and completed on April 22nd were made – new agreements were made and -
222. Q. So why do you say that you – that it was stolen from you?
A. Because it was – the trustee – the – excuse me, just one minute, I need the right words – the directors and such were changed in 2002 and 2003 long before the agreements of 2006 were done.
223. Q. I’m suggesting to you, sir, that everything was done with your knowledge and consent.
A. Well, then you’re suggesting a wrong conclusion.
224. Q. So, eventually you’re saying that that trust agreement came to an end, is that what you’re saying?
A. I’m not saying anything. I’m saying -
225. Q. Well, I want to know. You’re saying that at a certain point you signed off.
A. If I signed off, it was due to other agreements that your side is claiming are not relevant anymore, so you tell me.
226. Q. Okay, but you don’t have a copy of that?
A. I don’t have a copy of what?
227. Q. Of – of a document by which you ended, terminated, signed off the trust agreement?
A. I don’t have any copies with me, sir.
228. Q. You don’t have any?
A. No.
229. Q. So how do you know you signed off?
A. I’m not sure – how do I know if I signed off? I made an agreement sometime between February 8th, 2006 and April 22nd, 2002 with Marcello DiFrancesco.
230. Q. Your former lawyer?
A. My former lawyer, exactly, and has all the information; and David Miotto, who’s sitting beside you, and Elio Miotto, who’s not here, and those agreements have been not lived up to by your client.
231. R Q. When you reported matters to Marcello DiFrancesco regarding the pool, you did so in order that he would provide that information to the Miottos, did you not?
MR. REID: We’re not going to answer any more questions about the pool.
THE DEPONENT: I’ve made it clear, anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, I will not be -
232. MR. ZELDIN: Q. You didn’t have a problem talking about the releases.
A. That was more -
233. Q. You didn’t have a problem talking about the -
MR. REID: The releases had to do with -
234. MR. ZELDIN: Q. – the so-called trust agreement.
A. We needed to enter Gabriella Pierantoni into this matter. She is Marcello DiFrancesco’s common-law wife and she is, obviously, a party to your client’s scheme to defraud me of certain assets I used to have.
235. Q. Oh, really, so you had certain assets. Which assets are they?
A. I’m talking about one – I’m reading a document here, sorry – 1411187 Ontario Inc.
236. Q. That’s a company.
A. It’s an Ontario incorporated -
237. Q. Mm, hmm.
A. It’s a Corporation incorporated in Ontario which somehow has now found its way into the Miottos -
238. Q. Okay, now -
A. - Elio Miotto’s -
239. Q. Now, if I’m correct -
A. - possession without -
240. Q. If -
A. - me signing off on it.
241. R Q. If I’m correct, that company has, in the – had a mortgage on, was it your brother’s property?
A. Yes, but Marcello DiFrancesco would have been involved in – in applying any such mortgages at the time; and since he is working with you now, sir, I decline to talk about anything -
242. Q. Oh, I see -
A. - to do with Marcello DiFrancesco.
243. R Q. - so you won’t talk about that, okay. So that was a company that held a mortgage on – on which one of your brother’s farms or properties?
MR. REID: Can we just go off the record for a second?
THE DEPONENT: Anything to -
244. MR. ZELDIN: Well let him finish the answer. He was in the middle of answering.
THE DEPONENT: If it has to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, which it does, maybe you should check with him.
245. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, now we can go off the record.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

MR. REID: Firstly we’re getting –
MR. MIOTTO: Whatever the case may be, about the pool.
246. MR. ZELDIN: Okay.
MR. MIOTTO: You’re the one who talks about it.
247. MR. ZELDIN: Let’s go back on the record. Okay -
MR. MIOTTO: The pool.
MR. ZELDIN: Just – shsh- shsh – off the record for a sec.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

248. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, we’re back on the record, sir. You were in court, I believe, was it April 30th on the first return of this residential tendencies application?
A. I was.
249. Q. Okay. And your lawyer was there at the time during the proceeding that day?
A. Yes, yes.
250. Q. Okay, so perhaps your lawyer will be able to answer some of these questions. On that day, counsel, you indicated to Justice Wood that you’d like to consolidate the present landlord and tenant application with -
MR. REID: That was my recommendation to my client, that he should make a motion to do that and he should also make a motion to set aside his noting in default.
251. MR. ZELDIN: Okay.
MR. REID: And I’ve actually assisted his common-law spouse -
252. MR. ZELDIN: No, no. No, counsel, respectfully, I asked you a question. Did you advise Mr. Justice Wood that you would like to consolidate?
MR. REID: I indicated that was my recommendation to my client that he should do that.
253. MR. ZELDIN: Okay.
MR. REID: I haven’t yet received those instructions.
254. MR. ZELDIN: And I advised the - I advised the court that your client had already been noted in default and that there was a pending motion for judgement.
MR. REID: That’s right.
255. MR. ZELDIN: And to date, has your client instructed you to bring a motion?
MR. REID: He knows that his common-law spouse has one scheduled for July 26th in Toronto. So he does have some time to – to think about it. He hasn’t yet given me those instructions to do the motion material.
256. MR. ZELDIN: Okay. So date, you haven’t commenced preparing motion materials on behalf of Mr. Bionda?
MR. REID: No.
257. MR. ZELDIN: You assisted his common-law wife, Marcia Mackesy in preparing materials for the set aside motion and you served them the other day in court, I believe it was earlier this week?
MR. REID: That’s correct, in Barrie on Tuesday, wasn’t it? May – May 8th.
258. MR. ZELDIN: May -
THE DEPONENT: 8th.
259. MR. ZELDIN: May 8th.
MR. REID: Ms. Mackesy also asked for my assistance in finding a lawyer for her and, in fact, I have spoken to a lawyer who may or may not speak to her.
260. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, off the record.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

261. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Sir, for any of the businesses you’ve operated in the past, did you ever keep a set of books?
A. Um – yes.
262. Q. Did you have to think about that?
A. Yes.
263. Q. Well, isn’t it your practice to keep a set of books in the normal course?
A. When it applies, yes.
264. Q. Well, when wouldn’t it apply?
A. I guess it depends on the business. Some businesses, if you – the laws change but if you make – if it’s just a sidewalk business or a very small business where GST and things don’t apply, then you don’t have to worry about it.
265. Q. But you’re not into the small stuff, this sidewalk stuff. You’re a successful person, aren’t you?
A. On the contrary, sir. Small stuff is – is relevant business. Just give you a small example – I’ve bought and sold golf balls and it’s a very profitable business. You should know – I know, you might want to check out, just as an example, how large golf is in the world. When you can buy balls at a low price and resell them, it’s a very – it’s a very good business.
266. Q. Really?
A. Yes.
267. Q. Golf balls, eh?
A. Golf balls, absolutely.
268. R Q. Okay, and what about acquiring lots in the Bahamas?
A. Marcello DiFrancesco was my -
269. Q. Oh, I see.
A. - lawyer with you – who now works with you, sir, and I have no comments on anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco.
270. Q. Okay, what does a lot in the Bahamas have to do with the Marcello DiFrancesco?
A. Any business I may or may not have been involved in in the Bahamas would have been with Marcello DiFrancesco so -
271. Q. Any business you may or may not have been involved in?
A. Yes, absolutely.
272. Q. Okay. So you may or may not have been involved in – in a business in the Bahamas, is that the case?
A. All my business in the Bahamas was with Marcello DiFrancesco so, therefore, I decline to answer anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco.
273. Q. So, if I’m going to ask you questions about the so-called first charge on a valuable property on Paradise Island in the Bahamas for 1. – 1.11 – sorry, 1.1 million – forgive me, madam reporter – you’d say that that has something to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, is that true?
A. That – to my knowledge but you can ask me any question you like, sir. You didn’t ask me a question about that. You said “if you were about to” -
274. Q. Well, I’m going to ask – I did ask you and you refused to answer -
A. You have not asked me about that.
275. Q. Did you acquire a lot on Paradise Island in the Bahamas for 1.1 million?
A. I believe anything to do in the Bahamas has to do with Marcello DiFrancesco.
276. R Q. Why did you mention that lot in paragraph 27 of your affidavit?
A. At the – I’m not sure why I mentioned it, sir, but it has to do with Marcello DiFrancesco so, therefore, at this particular time, the line of questioning, Mr. DiFrancesco is working against me so I refuse to answer.
277. Q. So, in fact, sir, most of the information in your affidavit in some way pertains to something that was done with Marcello DiFrancesco. Is that what you’re telling me?
A. Yes, a number of years ago, Mr. DiFrancesco and right up until the time he was disbarred in November, 2005, was my attorney -
278. Q. So -
A. - therefore – and now that he’s working with your legal team for the Miottos, with the Miottos, with Wise Corporation, I’m really not sure because you refuse to identify how he’s working with you when I asked you on April 30th at the Bracebridge Court House; therefore, I will not answer nay questions that have to do with DiFrancesco.
279. Q. So you’re telling me, sir, that perhaps it was a mistake on your part to even file this affidavit?
A. No, I’m not tell you that at all, sir.
280. Q. So what you’re saying then is that you’ll say what you want to say, exactly the way you want to say it, but nobody can ask you questions about anything in this affidavit because it all has to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, according to you?
A. If that – you’re saying that, sir. I’m not saying that.
281. Q. Yes, you are. You haven’t answered any questions. You won’t answer questions about 141187 Ontario. You won’t answer questions about the lot in the Bahamas.
A. I’ve been defrauded by your clients with the cooperation of Marcello DiFrancesco and, therefore, I look forward to a court case about it, sir.
282. Q. Okay, are you telling me Marcello DiFrancesco was – was running International Financial Privacy Association Limited?
A. I’m not telling you anything, sir.
283. Q. Are you telling me that Marcello DiFrancesco was running International Financial Privacy Association Limited, yes or no?
A. No.
284. Q. So why don’t you talk about International Financial Privacy Association Limited? You refused to answer questions about that earlier.
A. I know that Marcello DiFrancesco either worked for or with that company and, therefore, he’s also my lawyer, or he was my lawyer at the time, therefore, I refuse to answer anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco.
285. Q. International Financial Privacy Association Limited was a scam operation, was it not?
A. Not to my recollection, sir.
286. Q. Okay, well the Saskatchewan Securities Division, Financial Services Commission, certainly thought so, did they not?
A. I really don’t know, sir. Maybe – if you have information you’d like to provide to me, then that’s up to you.
287. Q. Well, I would suggest you review Exhibit P and Q.
A. It appears that in July 28th, 2000, which was seven years ago -
288. Q. No, I’m just asking you to review it. I’m not asking you to make a speech.
A. I’m reviewing it and it has nothing to do with me.
289. Q. It’s got nothing to do with you?
A. No.
290. Q. So, a company that you operated and took money for has got nothing to do with you, is that what you’re saying?
A. You’re incorrect with your assumption, sir.
291. Q. I suggest to you I’m not incorrect with the assumptions.
A. I suggest to you you are.
292. Q. So why – why were you sending e-mails to Marcello DiFrancesco?
A. Well Marcello DiFrancesco was my lawyer for a number of years, I think maybe I’m allowed to send e-mails to him.
293. Q. Regarding IFPA, correct?
A. I have no idea. I’ve sent -
294. Q. So you’re not a principal of IFPA?
A. I am not.
295. Q. You never were a principal of IFPA?
A. I decline to answer based on Marcello DiFrancesco was my lawyer and he’s -
296. R Q. So you’re not a principal now but you may have been before? You may or you may not have been, is that what you’re saying?
A. I decline to answer, sir.
297. Q. No, you’re declining to answer. I’m going to suggest to you you’re going to have to answer.
A. When will I have to answer, sir?
298. Q. Either at this examination or when a judge orders you to.
A. I – I respect the courts and I would respect any judge’s order, sir.
299. Q. I’m suggesting to you, sir, that you ran a scam operation where you told fanciful stories about mysterious international bankers and banking transactions, isn’t that the case?
A. What is the question?
300. Q. You heard the question and we’ll have madam reporter read it over to you or you can listen to the tape.
A. I heard a suggestion.
301. Q. You heard the question. Let’s read it over – let’s hear it – let’s go off the record for a moment so you can hear the question.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

REPORTER’S NOTE: Reporter played back portion of examination from question 291 to this point.

302. MR. ZELDIN: Q. You heard the question.
A. And it’s incorrect.
303. Q. Okay, what part of it is incorrect?
A. I did not run – I - whatever you called a scam operation.
304. R Q. Did you ever talk to Elio Miotto or David Miotto about an investment pool?
A. Marcello DiFrancesco is my lawyer and anything to do with the Miottos have to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, therefore, I decline to answer.
MR. REID: Can I just save us – our position was that he’s not going to answer any more questions concerning the pool which is the subject of a Toronto action. If you wish to have a motion - bring a motion on the point, you may use that but why don’t we move on to the 255 Allison’s Point which is the subject of this application.
305. MR. ZELDIN: Counsel, I’ll get to 255 Allison’s Road. I will conduct this examination as I see fit.
MR. REID: Well, it’s pretty clear he’s not going to answer those questions, so we’re wasting our time.
306. MR. ZELDIN: Oh, no, we’re not.
BY MR. ZELDIN:
307. Q. I want to know what part is not correct of the question that you just said – you gave an answer to the question posed and you said it’s not correct. What part is not correct?
A. All of it.
308. R Q. Did you ever speak to the Miottos regarding an investment scheme?
A. Any speaking with the Miottos – Miottos, sir, is – would have been done through Marcello DiFrancesco who was my lawyer who is now working with the Miottos against myself and I decline to answer anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco as my rights have been violated.
309. Q. So are you suggesting, sir, then that you’ve never spoken to David Miotto or Elio Miotto directly?
A. Directly to the two of them, I’ve spoken to them, yes, definitely.
310. Q. Alright, did you go to Switzerland with Elio Miotto?
A. I did.
311. Q. And he paid for your trip, didn’t he?
A. He offered to pay for my trip and he did, as agreed.
312. Q. Okay.
A. He begged to pay for my trip so he could go.
313. Q. Oh, he begged, did he?
A. Yes, he did.
314. Q. That’s rich.
MR. REID: Please don’t make comments -
315. MR. ZELDIN: I withdraw that comment.
BY MR. ZELDIN:
316. R Q. So what did you discuss when you went on the trip with Elio Miotto?
A. It’s all information pertaining to Marcello DiFrancesco, so I decline to answer.
317. R Q. And did you give information to Elio in Switzerland suggesting that you had spoken to mysterious international banking figures and that the pool would eventually pay off money?
A. I decline to answer based on that’s material that includes Marcello DiFrancesco, my former attorney who is now disbarred and working against me with your team.
318. Q. So anything that Marcello DiFrancesco may have touched, you’re going to decline to answer?
A. It depends on the question, sir.
319. Q. Oh, so you’re going to pick and choose, is that the case?
A. No, I just have to make sure that it’s an appropriate line of questioning.
320. Q. Who did the transaction work and the conveyancing on 255 Allison’s?
A. I have no idea.
321. Q. You don’t, eh?
A. No.
322. Q. How did the property get into the applicant’s name?
A. Who are we talking about?
323. Q. The applicant is 1530495 Ontario Inc., if you don’t know who did the conveyancing.
A. I don’t know what conveyance means, sir. So if you want to explain it.
324. Q. I think you know full-well?
A. No, I don’t, sorry.
325. Q. Who did the property transfer?
A. On – I’m going to assume the property – I don’t – I don’t know. How would I know who did the property transfer?
326. Q. It was your brother’s house, was it not, at least in name?
A. Which property are we talking about?
327. Q. 255 Allison’s Point?
A. No.
328. Q. Oh, sorry, it was your brother-in-law’s and your sister’s house, correct?
A. That’s correct.
329. Q. So you know who owned it. You know who owned it full-well. So why – And in fact, you discussed it at some length in your affidavit. Is that not the case?
A. Do I know who owned the house? I would say that’s correct. I just – I didn’t hear the question. I heard the question but I didn’t realize it was a question. Prior to -
330. Q. Why are you taking so long to answer?
A. Well, I’m listening to your – your –
331. Q. I -
A. You’re poor line of questioning, sir.
332. Q. Well, I know, in other words you’re trying to think up an answer.
A. Is it not my right to listen to a – to think before I answer?
333. Q. No, I’m just wondering -
A. Or would you - would you prefer I did not?
334. Q. I would prefer that you provide truthful answers, that’s all.
A. Then you give me the time to answer.
MR. REID: Just for the record, there’s not long delays after every question.
335. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I – it indicates in paragraph nine that you wanted to loan your sister funds to construct a new home.
A. I’m reading it, yes.
336. Q. And Marcello suggested you set up a corporation?
A. That’s correct.
337. Q. And he set up 1411187 Ontario Inc.?
A. That’s correct.
338. Q. Now, how did the house at 255 Allison’s get into the name of that company?
A. It didn’t get into the name of that company, sir.
339. Q. Okay, so you’re telling me it wasn’t transferred into – into that company’s name?
A. Into 141187?
340. Q. The applicant.
A. Oh, into 1530495. It got into that company – I’m not sure how it got into the company but that was a company set up initially for Elio Miotto as he was holding it in trust for me on a pre-arranged agreement.
341. Q. What was he holding in trust for you?
A. He was holding the house in trust for me and the shares of the company, 1530495.
342. Q. Okay, so you’re saying that that – that he was holding it in trust for you?
A. I am saying that, yes.
343. Q. Why in the world would Mr. Miotto hold the property in trust for you?
A. He’d held it because he indicated he would hold it for – for myself if I was able to repay him the money that he suggested that he put into the property.
344. Q. Well, how much did he put into the property?
A. I didn’t see it but I believe a figure – I’ve never seen any financial information, sir, but I’m - the figure that’s been used is $320,000.00; but my former attorney has never shown me anything.
345. Q. Okay, now so asfaras you’re concerned that the house at 255 Allison’s is yours? Is that what you’re trying to tell us?
A. I’m trying to tell you that I’ve had the opportunity in a pre-described agreement with Mr. – that I could re-buy it from Mr. Miotto, the shares of the company, at any time for $320,000.00 which was the amount of money he put into the company, is what the figure that has been used.
346. Q. And you’re – and are you supposed to be able to live there rent-free?
A. Yes.
347. Q. So you’re supposed to live there rent-free. You don’t have any obligation to pay rent, is that what you’re saying?
A. I didn’t have any obligation until -
348. Q. No, I’m asking you right now. You don’t recognize an obligation to pay rent?
A. No, not now due to the breaking of the agreement of Mr. Miotto back in April of 2006. There were two agreements. The first agreement, I pay rent. The second agreement, he invest 1.5 million dollars. He has not done so, in a matter outside of Canada.
349. Q. And that’s a lot in the Bahamas, is that what you’re saying, that you don’t want to talk about?
A. It’s – you’re – it’s not what you’re saying. It’s not -
350. Q. The matter outside Canada?
A. No, the matter is in Panama.
351. Q. The company that holds the lot is a Panamanian corporation, as I understand, correct?
A. That’s my understanding, yes.
352. Q. Okay, but the lot itself which is the asset of the corporation, is in the Bahamas, correct?
A. That’s correct.
353. Q. And how was that corporation purchased?
A. Now, you -
354. Q. How was that asset purchased, that lot?
A. Marcello DiFrancesco was involved in the purchasing of that lot.
355. R Q. Did you instruct Marcello DiFrancesco to purchase that lot?
A. I cannot speak about anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco as he is my former lawyer who is now working with your – your - with the Miottos team, if you will. I should also state that pursuant to numerous confidentiality agreements between the Miottos and myself and DiFrancesco and various lawyers, anybody speaking about that is in violation.
356. Q. So you believe you’re supposed to live rent-free in that house at 255 Allison’s, is that correct?
A. It’s a two-sided question, sir. If the Miottos had have lived up to their agreement, no, but they did not.
357. Q. Okay, where in the agreement does it say that – in that agreement that you keep talking about with the Miottos to pay 1.5 million dollars, does it – does it say that your rent doesn’t have to be paid?
A. I don’t – I don’t think it’s specific but I don’t have a rental agreement on the house there.
358. Q. So you’re saying that there is no -
A. I’m saying it was a trade-off, sir.
359. Q. Okay, you’re making the trade-off but there was nothing in the agreement that said that until – if they don’t provide those monies, that you don’t have to pay rent at 255 Allison’s, is that the case?
A. It’s a – it’s a verbal agreement with Mr. Miotto and myself.
360. Q. Now, you’re saying it’s verbal. Mr. Miotto doesn’t say so.
A. And Mr. Miotto’s lying.
361. Q. I’m suggesting to you, sir, that there is nothing in the agreement that you’ve proffered that says you don’t have to pay rent at 255 Allison’s.
A. Which agreement are you talking about? Could you -
362. Q. You know full-well.
A. Will you identify it by the top of its page, please?
363. Q. Let’s turn to your affidavit. In case you don’t know which agreement we’re talking about, the agreement that you say obligates Elio Miotto -
A. Okay, I have the document in front of me.
364. Q. - to pay money – oh, so you know what document we’re talking about?
A. Yes, my lawyer just opened the page to me, sir, as you saw. Yes, this document clearly indicates that Mr. Miotto is to provide $75,000.00 a month in financing for a specific corporation which he did not; and the verbal agreement I had with Mr. Miotto regarding the rent for 255 Allison Point Road, that should have started on May 1st, was then not due as -
365. Q. Okay, so what -
A. As agreed by myself.
366. Q. Let’s look at this agreement on February 9th, 2006. In what capacity did you make this agreement?
A. In what – can you explain “what capacity”?
367. Q. Let your lawyer explain that to you.
A. What’s capacity?
MR. REID: Your authority or what role did you play?
THE DEPONENT: I was Power of Attorney to the Corporation.
368. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Where is the Power of Attorney?
A. Pardon me?
369. Q. Where is the Power of Attorney?
A. Well I don’t have any documents with me. The Power of Attorney is registered in Panama. This is a Panama corporation, sir.
370. Q. No, I’m asking you, what gave you the authority to make an agreement? Are you a shareholder of that company?
A. I’m the Power of Attorney. I’ve already answered your question.
371. Q. When did the company grant you a Power of Attorney?
A. I’m unfamiliar – I’m unknown of that at the moment.
372. Q. Okay, where are the books and records of this company?
A. They would be in Panama.
373. Q. Do you still hold the Power of Attorney?
A. It’s unclear at this time.
374. R Q. So you don’t have the Power of Attorney here, and I understand you drafted this agreement, is that correct?
A. Due to Marcello DiFrancesco and the confidentiality agreements around this whole situation signed by David Miotto, Elio Miotto and Marcello DiFrancesco and myself, I believe you’re trying to coerce me into breaking my confidentiality agreement with those three others.
375. Q. Well, I want to see where – where does it say that Marcello DiFrancesco is involved in this company – is involved in this agreement?
A. There’s a series of agreements that he was involved in, this being one of them.
376. Q. Now, this particular document says “Agreement, February 9th, 2006.” Mr. Marcello DiFrancesco didn’t have anything to do with this document?
A. He had everything to do with this document.
377. Q. Did you draft this? Did you draw this up?
A. No, I provided information for this.
378. Q. Who drew it up?
A. I’m not sure, sir. It was done by – in-
379. Q. I’m suggesting to you that you drew it up?
A. Well, it was done in Panama.
380. Q. Well, who was in Panama at the time?
A. Elio Miotto was in Panama at the time, so-
381. Q. With you, right?
A. Yes.
382. Q. Okay, and you drew it up?
A. No, this was a cooperative effort between, if my memory serves, between Elio Miotto who signed this willingly, as you can see, and myself and an attorney, and two other representatives of the attorney.
383. Q. Okay, but their names aren’t on here, are they?
A. This document is registered in the Registry in Panama, sir, so, you know, it’s been duly stamped.
384. Q. Duly stamped in what Registry?
A. Well, it’s in the Republic of Panama. It’s in – I don’t know the actual – the official -
385. Q. You don’t really know what you’re talking about, do you?
A. Well, would you like me to tell you what I’m talking about? I’m trying to tell you that this document here is in the records in Panama, stamped, meaning it’s been authenticated.
386. Q. What do you mean the records in Panama? What kind of records, in the post office? What – what office has it been registered in?
A. I’m not sure of the name of the office because it’ll be in Spanish but it’ll be in wherever the records are kept for incorporations or corporations.
387. Q. And how do you know it’s been – it’s been registered?
A. Because Mr. Miotto and myself insisted that it was, in front of -
388. Q. And who did you – who did you insist to?
A. A lawyer in Panama, and Mr. Frego.
389. Q. How do you spell that?
A. I’m not sure. Mr. Miotto has all his information, so maybe you should ask him.
390. Q. No, I’m asking you.
A. I just told you, I don’t know.
391. Q. You don’t know how to spell it?
A. No, I don’t.
392. Q. Do you want to take a guess?
A. No, I don’t.
393. Q. That’s the lawyer actually that you found down in Panama, isn’t it?
A. No, it’s a lawyer that -
394. Q. Yes, it is.
A. - followed Shoregate Investments since it’s inception.
395. R Q. And who caused Shoregate Investments Inc. to be incorporated?
A. You’re treading into Marcello DiFrancesco territory.
396. Q. So this is an agreement where it says “between Miotto and Bionda”, is that what you’re saying?
A. It’s an agreement that has obviously been signed by Mr. Elio Miotto and myself.
397. Q. No, I want you to explain this to me. It says “As Co-Powers of Attorneys, Miotto and Bionda agree to the following terms.”
A. It’s pretty self-explanatory.
398. Q. Now, the only shareholders in the company, as I understand the state of existence of the company’s books at the present time, are Elio Miotto and Marcia Erin Mackesy. Is that correct?
A. I have – I have no knowledge of that. I don’t know what your client has done with his shares, and I don’t know what Marcia Erin Mackesy has done with hers.
399. Q. Oh, you don’t know. That’s your wife, right?
A. It’s my common-law spouse.
400. Q. Your common-law spouse, and how long have you been together?
A. Uh – ten years.
401. Q. Okay, so you don’t know what she’s done?
A. I do not know what she’s done.
402. Q. Okay, so you don’t negotiate on her behalf?
A. No, not with this.
403. Q. You never do anything on her behalf?
A. Sure I do, but not with this.
404. Q. Not with respect to this company?
A. No, I had no knowledge about this.
405. Q. Okay.
A. It’s not my business and confidentiality agreements I take seriously, unlike your client.
406. Q. Okay, so I’m going to show you an e-mail dated October 3rd, 2006 to Elio Miotto from yourself.
A. Mm, hmm.
407. Q. Do you want to take a look at that? Did you send that e-mail to Elio? We’ll mark that as the next exhibit. I believe it’s probably the first one on this examination.
A. It appears I did, yes.
408. Q. Okay, let’s pass it over.
MR. REID: Let’s see.
409. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I’d like to mark it, please. You can have it back, Mr. Reid. I just want to get it marked so we don’t lose the train of things. I’ll try and mark it right on the face of the document. That’s exhibit number one.

EXHIBIT NO. 1 E-mail dated October 3, 2006 from Elio Miotto to Bionda.

( produced and marked )

410. MR. ZELDIN: There you go, duly marked as exhibit one.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

411. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, back on the record, your e-mail says “This is not the e-mail I was talking about. That will come later today. Regarding Shoregate, you should do your research anyway at Ocean Club but she is not interested in not knowing for sure what she’s doing presently. So you can consider that number gone unless you have changed circumstances.” Who is the she?
A. I’m not sure, sir. That’s -
412. Q. Okay, you’re not sure?
A. Well, read -
413. Q. That’s – that’s your answer?
A. Well, read a little bit further -
414. Q. Why don’t you read it over – read it over yourself and I’ll ask you. Maybe that’ll hurry things along.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

415. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Have you had an opportunity now to read it?
A. Yeah.
416. Q. Okay.
A. Although it’s unclear but as - as there’s no other name in it but if you’re talking about Shoregate, you’re talking about Marcia.
417. Q. That’s right, and that’s your common-law wife, right?
A. Yes, I need to be clear when I say something, sir, if it’s correct or not. That’s why – if I ask to see something or if I can’t fully answer -
418. Q. I’m happy to show you the documents, sir. I’m happy to show you the document.
A. I appreciate that, thank you.
419. Q. Okay, and in essence, you’re negotiating with Elio for you wife in this correspondence?
A. If I was the Power of Attorney, then I have every right to negotiate for the company.
420. Q. Well, you don’t need a Power of Attorney to negotiate on behalf of your spouse if she’s a shareholder or she owns some property.
A. I would need a Power of Attorney to negotiate on any piece of property, I would hope, but un- I wish your clients would follow that because all along they haven’t -
421. Q. Well, I’m suggesting to you, sir, you don’t need a Power of Attorney but, clearly, in this – in this document you’re negotiating on behalf of your common-law spouse, Marcia Mackesy, correct?
A. I’m negotiating on behalf of Shoregate Investments by the looks of things to me. That’s my interpretation.
422. Q. How can you negotiate on behalf of Shoregate Investments? What do you have to negotiate?
A. I don’t know what I have to negotiate but if I was negotiating on behalf of Shoregate Investments, that’s - I would have a Power of Attorney.
423. Q. Shore – Shoregate Investments is – is simply a corporate entity.
A. Okay. I don’t know how to answer that. That’s a statement.
424. Q. So you’re telling me that Marcia Mackesy doesn’t know – or you don’t know anything about the company insofar as Marcia Mackesy is concerned?
A. I’m saying right now, sir, that I don’t have the authority -
425. Q. No, about ten, 15 minutes ago in this examination, before we clarified who the “she” is in Exhibit 1, you – you told me that Marcia Mackesy does what she wants in respect to the shares that she owns.
A. Well, whoever the owners of any shares can do whatever they want, so I -
426. Q. No, I – sir -
A. I don’t tell anybody -
427. Q. - don’t answer my question -
A. - what to do.
428. Q. - with a general statement.
A. Then answer.
429. Q. You’re clearly negotiating in the correspondence of October 3, 2006 for your common-law spouse?
A. If I was given authority then – then I would be negotiating. If I wasn’t, then I wouldn’t.
MR. REID: To be fair, I thought he was referring to the present; and the document refers to something in the past.
430. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, Mr. Reid, you know you’re not clarifying anything. The witness understood.
THE DEPONENT: Again, a statement on your part or a suggestion, sir. You’re asking trick questions, so why don’t you ask a direct question.
431. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I’m suggesting to you that your wife does anything you want.
A. Then you’re incorrect. That’s a really broad statement and -
432. Q. I’m suggesting -
A. - you should probably clarify that what you’re suggesting.
433. Q. I’m suggesting to you that you put the shares into her name so that she could hold them and you deprived Elio Miotto of the 50% share interest in – in Shoregate.
A. I’d - you’re incorrect. I don’t – I don’t know why you’re coming to those assumptions but -
434. Q. I’m suggesting to you that when you talk about “she” in Exhibit 1, all you – what you’re really doing is just trying to suggest that you don’t have authority over your wife but it’s really you behind it, isn’t it?
A. No, that’s incorrect.
435. Q. Now, we noticed that in Exhibit 1, you indicated you don’t own a house.
A. That’s correct.
436. Q. So, as a result, if you don’t own a house and you live in the house and reside in the house and use the property, then you should be expected to pay for it, shouldn’t you?
A. Not if I have a prior deal that says I do not have to pay for it.
437. Q. But it doesn’t say that in your deal, does it?
A. Well, I’m talking right back from 2002, sir, when your clients have suggested I owed him rent right from the start. There’s never -
438. Q. Well, I’m saying -
A. There’s never been an agreement for rent on 255 Allison Point Road.
439. Q. Well, I’m suggesting to you that there is a – that there is an agreement.
A. Well, you’re wrong.
440. MR. ZELDIN: Off the record.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

441. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Were you not supposed to pay the taxes on 255 Allison?
A. Yes, I agreed to pay the taxes on 255 Allison.
442. Q. Why didn’t you pay the taxes?
A. I could pay them whenever I want. They’ve never been paid yet.
443. Q. What do you mean you can pay them whenever you want?
A. My agreement was I could pay them as – actually, the agreement was that Mr. Miotto doesn’t go into his pocket on 255 Allison Road, which he has not done to date. Taxes have been compiling.
444. Q. Okay, so that’s the deal, right?
A. That’s the deal, right.
445. Q. That’s the deal, okay.
A. That’s the deal.
446. Q. Okay, so the deal is whatever you say it is, is that the situation?
A. Well, the deal is whatever Mr. Miotto and I came – came up together with.
447. Q. When were you supposed to pay the taxes on 255?
A. I just told you, I could pay them whenever I want. Preferably, we would pay them on a yearly basis or quarterly basis or twice – every two years. He just did not want to go into his own pocket, which he has not done so far.
448. Q. Okay, now you wrote on May 22nd, 2003 that “The taxes on 255 are not any concern to me at this moment.” Is that correct?
A. That’s correct because I would pay them later.
449. Q. Okay, and -
A. As I -
450. Q. And I’m suggesting to you, sir, that the reason why you said that is because you’re answering a response about “Hey, taxes are not being paid. What’s going on Jordy?”
A. I think -
451. Q. Isn’t that the case?
A. I think that’s your suggestion again, sir.
452. Q. Okay, well why would you mention them?
A. I don’t know. I’m not looking at the document, you know. Once again, it’s -
453. R Q. Okay. Once again, an e-mail dated May 22nd, 2003, “Taxes on 255 are not any concern to me at this moment.” Did you write that or didn’t you?
A. Addressed to Marcello DiFrancesco. Marcello DiFrancesco is my former lawyer, is now working with you, sir.
454. Q. Okay, so you won’t answer that? Asfaras you’re concerned, you don’t have to answer anything that deals with Marcello DiFrancesco and it’s you, and you alone, who decides when something pertains to Marcello DiFrancesco?
A. That’s your assumption.

EXHIBIT NO. 2 E-mail dated May 22nd, 2003.

( produced and marked )


455. Q. And were – was there an automobile that you were permitted to use?
A. Do you want to be more specific?
456. Q. A Mercedes Benz?
A. Um – I’m waiting for a question. I drove a Mercedes Benz for some time.
457. R Q. Okay, whose Mercedes Benz was it?
A. It was pertaining to Marcello DiFrancesco.
458. Q. Okay -
A. Well, you look at who leased – who leased the Mercedes Benz.
459. Q. Okay, I’m going to show you a document and this is an e-mail of 30th September, 2003.
A. Mm, hmm.
460. R Q. Did you author that?
A. Mm, hmm. Let me have a look. This is made out to Marcello DiFrancesco. It’s a document that’s been sent to Marcello DiFrancesco, therefore, I cannot comment on it as he was my former attorney, now working against me with the Miotto’s.
461. Q. So we’ll make that – that is your e-mail though, right?
A. That’s a document -
462. Q. That’s your e-mail, you sent it, didn’t you?
A. That’s a document I sent to Marcello DiFrancesco, therefore, I won’t comment on it.
463. MR. ZELDIN: I believe this is Exhibit 3.


EXHIBIT NO. 3 E-mail dated September 30th, 2003.

( produced and marked )

464. R MR. ZELDIN: Q. And in this document, it says you – “I am arranging the house situation. The insurance. The Benz. Back rents.” Does it say that in the document?
A. It’s a document I – was from Marcello DiFrancesco. I have no comment.
465. Q. So you’re refusing to answer whether it says that? Well, the document speaks for itself. The back rents, are they pertaining to 255 Allison’s?
A. I have no idea.
466. R Q. You have no idea. Are you the author of this document of August 14th, 2003? It’s entitled “To Pool participants”.
A. Marcello DiFrancesco is the trustee of the pool, therefore, I have no comment.
467. Q. But it wasn’t intended to be read just by Marcello. It was intended to be read by all the pool participants.
A. Mr. DiFrancesco is trustee of the said pool, therefore -
468. R Q. Did you author that document?
A. Once again my right’s being violated.
469. Q. Oh, I’m sure. We’ll mark this as the next exhibit.
BY THE REPORTER: Four.


EXHIBIT NO. 4 document dated August 14th, 2003 “To pool participants”

( produced and marked )



470. R MR. ZELDIN: Q. Letter of October 14th, 2003. This says “Nobody, especially me, asked you to be a part of this. You were either brought to the table or asked to be a part. After listening what was said, you made a decision to be included. You, not me, not Marcello, not your dog, only you. Other than the capital you provided, you have no further input in this venture, legally speaking.” Did you write that?
A. I have no comment on the document, sir.
471. Q. Okay, well you seem to know a few things about legal matters.
MR. REID: That’s another comment.
472. MR. ZELDIN: Q. No, I’m suggesting to him - where do you get your legal knowledge from?
A. I have no legal knowledge.
473. R Q. So why are you commenting here about matters “legally speaking”?
A. I have no comment on that document, sir.
474. R Q. Is this the pool that you’re – that the Miottos invested in?
A. I have no comment on the document, sir.
475. R Q. I’m suggesting to you it is the pool that was invested in, is that correct?
A. I have no comment on the document, sir.
476. R Q. Have you discussed the shares in Shoregate with your common-law wife?
A. That’s a matter pertaining to Marcello DiFrancesco and -
477. Q. Okay, and?
A. Confidentiality of the company, and I’m not comfortable or authorized to speak on his behalf.
478. Q. Did you discuss this agreement with your wife?
A. No, sir.
479. Q. Did you ever discuss the agreement with your wife?
A. Which agreement?
480. Q. The agreement dated February 9th, 1996 which is -
MR. REID: 2006?
481. MR. ZELDIN: Q. 2006 – forgive me for saying 1996. It’s attached to your affidavit. Is it – was it not made an exhibit?
A. Yeah, it’s right here.
MR. REID: Yes.
482. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I can’t see, is it – is that Exhibit B -
MR. REID: Probably.
483. MR. ZELDIN: Q. - to your affidavit? It’s up in the top lefthand corner so -
MR. REID: That’s right. The first exhibit is a trust agreement. That’s the second, Exhibit B.
484. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, so asfaras you’re concerned, sir -
A. At that time, I was the Power of Attorney of the company and I had -
485. Q. So you didn’t discuss this agreement with your wife, did you?
A. I don’t recall and as the Power of Attorney, I was the Power of Attorney of the Corporation and I had authorization, as the Power of Attorney, to work on best interests for the company.
486. Q. But your – your wife didn’t authorize that?
A. I don’t recall, sir. I was the Power of Attorney. I had full authorization -
487. Q. For the company?
A. - to operate on my own, yes.
488. Q. For the company?
A. For the – for Shoregate Investments.
489. Q. And wasn’t – weren’t the shares supposed to be held by Elio?
A. No.
490. Q. Weren’t – were they not supposed to be part of the security for him investing in the pool with his brother?
A. Absolutely not.
491. Q. Okay. So how did Elio end up owning 50% of the shares?
A. Uh -
492. Q. Were they not given as – as security for his investment?
A. Uh – I don’t recall the exact way but Mr. DiFrancesco, Mr. David Miotto, Mr. Elio Miotto and myself met between February 8th and April 22nd, 2006 and made agreements which have all been violated in confidentiality by the Miottos and DiFrancesco.
493. Q. But you don’t recall, that’s the – basically, you -
A. I don’t recall the -
494. Q. You were down in Panama. You did all this work and you don’t recall. Okay.
A. Are you speaking for me again, sir?
495. Q. It’s a cross-examination. I’m entitled to suggest to you -
A. Is it?
496. Q. - something. It’s a proper mode of questioning. Your lawyer didn’t object.
A. Okay.
497. Q. That’s your answer, it’s okay, that you agree with this statement?
A. No, I agree with the fact that you’re speaking for me is okay by you.
498. Q. Do you agree with the assertion I made? Let’s keep this -
A. No.
499. Q. - examination on track.
A. No, I don’t – do not agree with the assertion you made.
500. Q. You don’t, okay. So you don’t remember anything from that time?
A. I remember plenty but I’m bound by confidentiality agreements. I’m bound by the corrupt nature that Marcello DiFrancesco and your clients have operated against me in a legal fashion.
501. Q. Okay, but it’s okay for you to show the document and file in court, but you don’t have to answer any questions about it, is that what you’re saying?
A. I – I don’t know. I’m not saying anything. I guess a judge will decide.
502. MR. ZELDIN: Off the record for a moment.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

503. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, sir, if you turn to Exhibit R of Mr. Elio Miotto’s affidavit of May 9th, 2007.
A. Mm, hmm.
504. Q. Okay, that’s an affidavit of service of Leslie Pelling, process server.
A. Mm, hmm.
505. Q. Do you recall being served with a statement of claim?
A. I do.
506. Q. Okay, and was it on February 13th, 2007?
A. I don’t know.
507. Q. You don’t’ recall?
A. I don’t recall the date, sir.
508. Q. Okay. Chances are this is correct?
A. I don’t know how to answer that. I don’t recall the date.
509. Q. Alright.
A. If I don’t recall the date, how would you like me to answer that?
510. Q. Do you disagree with the fact that you were served on February 13th?
A. I possibly could have been served on February 13th. I’m assuming Mr. Pelling is a – is a law abiding citizen.
511. MR. ZELDIN: We can go off the record if you want to save some tape.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

512. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Do you recall being served with the proceedings in this landlord and tenant matter?
A. Yes, I do.
513. Q. Now, you retained Mr. Reid shortly thereafter? We’re back on the record, weren’t we?
A. I retained Mr. Reid – umm -
514. Q. It’s not a trick question. You don’t have to know the exact date or time.
A. Well, I retained Mr. Reid, I believe, sir, after I was served the – this matter here, like this is the landlord, tenant action.
515. Q. It’s called the landlord and tenant proceeding.
A. Okay. Then I would have retained Mr. Reid after that fact.
516. Q. That’s what I’m talking about.
A. Yes.
517. Q. When I said shortly thereafter because this matter has shorter timelines.
A. Mm, hmm.
518. Q. So you had Mr. Reid attend court for you on April 30th, 2007?
A. I did.
519. Q. And your wife attended court as well, is that correct?
A. I believe she did.
520. Q. Well, you know she did?
A. I believe she did, sir.
521. Q. You saw her there, didn’t you?
A. No, I did not.
522. Q. Why, did she go home when you showed up?
A. She went home prior to me showing up.
523. Q. But you spoke to her, did you not?
A. I don’t recall, sir. I was not in court with my wife.
524. Q. But the two of you spoke?
A. Uh – I believe we said hello on the way outside the court house.
525. Q. Okay, do you mean to say she didn’t contact you regarding the children during the course of the day?
A. We were in contact, yes, and we – the reason we spoke is we had to exchange vehicles. So “hello”, “goodbye”.
526. Q. You didn’t speak about this proceeding?
A. No, not to my recollection. I think there was a time issue of her to get back for the children.
527. Q. And you were watching the children in the morning, is that correct?
A. I was watching the children – not just watching – no, I was watching one child and driving school kids around for an activity that particular day. It was my day.
528. Q. Do you hold a bank account, sir?
A. No, I do not.
529. Q. Is any other person holding a bank account for you?
A. Not directly for me.
530. Q. What do you mean by not directly for you?
A. Well, from time to time, if needed, I can – can use – not use – from time to time, if needed -if I needed something cashed or done, my wife would do it for me, common-law Marci. If it was, you know, acceptable.
531. Q. So you use her bank account?
A. No, I don’t use it. From time to time, if needed, I can use it.
532. Q. Is there – is any other person holding any money or operating a bank account for you?
A. No, sir.
533. Q. Do you have any other property?
A. No, sir.
534. Q. What about your vehicle?
A. I don’t have a vehicle.
535. Q. Who owns the vehicle?
A. Which vehicle?
536. Q. The vehicle that you and your wife use for transportation?
A. Which vehicle? You need to be more specific, sir.
537. Q. Okay, how many vehicles do you have?
A. I don’t have any. I don’t own any.
538. Q. Okay, what vehicles do you and your common-law wife use?
A. I drive a – when available, my mother’s vehicle.
539. Q. And what about your common-law spouse?
A. She drives – I believe she has a vehicle.
540. Q. You believe she has?
A. Mm, hmm.
541. Q. You’re not sure?
A. I’m not sure.
542. Q. Okay, it’s only parked in the driveway at your residence?
A. No, you’re asking about ownership, sir. You’re going to have to ask her about that.
543. Q. What about the car that she uses? Let’s use the word “use”.
A. What about the car she uses? You’re asking me about ownership. I don’t know the ownership of my wife’s status.
544. Q. Okay, but she uses a car, is that correct?
A. She has a car, yes.
545. Q. Okay, so you don’t have any property whatsoever in your name?
A. No, I don’t.
546. Q. And you have no property that you’re entitled to?
A. I have assets that I’m fighting your clients for that have been stolen from me, if that’s what you want to talk – talk about.
547. Q. You have assets?
A. I have – I used to have assets in my name that your clients have stolen from me.
548. Q. Well, I’ve tried to talk to you but you won’t talk to me.
A. No, you haven’t tried to talk to me, sir; you’ve tried to position me.
549. Q. Now what, pray tell, are those assets?
A. I was once in control of a company called 1411187 Ontario Inc., and through a series of fraudulent activities between Marcello DiFrancesco, David and Elio Miotto, somehow they ended up with the corporation.
550. Q. What’s the fraudulent activity that David Miotto did?
A. Oh, he’s – he’s part of Mr. Elio Miotto. Why else would he be standing here today.
551. Q. No, I want to know what he did –
A. He’s a -
552. Q. What’s the fraudulent activity that he did?
A. He’s a party to Elio, everything Elio Miotto has done. He’s -
553. Q. Well, what did Elio Miotto do?
A. Elio Miotto, Marcello DiFrancesco, David Miotto have done a number of things that have been inconsistent with what we know as law.
554. Q. Well, what are they?
A. I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, sir, but we’re investigating that right now.
555. Q. So you –in essence, you can’t point to one thing?
A. It would be preliminary for me to point to anything at this particular time. I feel I’ve been defrauded by your clients and I’m going to attempt to prove that.
556. Q. Did you discuss this case with your common-law spouse?
A. This landlord tenant case?
557. Q. Yes.
A. I have discussed it with her but, you know, we talked about today I was coming down here. We haven’t discussed anything specifics.
558. Q. Have you discussed this case at all with her?
A. This particular case, have I discussed with her, yes. I have discussed with her.
559. Q. And what did you discuss with her?
A. Basically court dates and nothing in too much detail. She’s representing herself. And, as you know, she’s had no knowledge of any of this; and, therefore, she’s going to seek representation and defend herself.
560. Q. Well, you’re saying as I know. I don’t know.
A. Oh, I believe you do know, sir.
561. Q. Well, did you tell her what to put into her affidavit of May 8th, 2007?
A. No, I did not.
562. Q. Then where did she come into that information?
A. I don’t know. I never read her affidavit, sir.
563. Q. You never the affidavit?
A. I’ve never read the affidavit.
564. Q. Here, have a look at it.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

THE DEPONENT: Been told that she was – been noted in default by either you or the courts or Mr. Reid. So that’s where she got that information. It says right here “Jordan told me that he owned 255 Allison Point.” So that’s where she got that information.
565. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Mm, hmm.
A. “I later learned that Jordan’s mortgage was not in his name but a corporate name.” And she knows Marcello DiFrancesco although she’s never done any business with him. Any information here that she would have got she would have needed from myself but it would have been over time and, I guess, from being – just at quick look, I would imagine I provided, if she asked me questions, so that she could – I don’t know when she did the affidavit, sir, but she would have learned certain information over time or whatever; but, generally, I kept everything from her.
566. Q. Okay, pass it back. For the record, that’s the affidavit of Marcia Mackesy dated May 8th, 2007. It’s a copy, we’ll make – mark that as the next exhibit.

EXHIBIT NO. 5 Affidavit of Marcia Mackesy dated May 8th, 2007.

( produced and marked )


567. MR. ZELDIN: Q. So, in other words, sir, you did discuss the case with her, didn’t you?
A. No, I haven’t discussed the case with her, sir.
568. Q. Well, you told her a lot of things.
A. No, I did not -
569. Q. Enough to fill out several pages of an affidavit.
A. Would you like my words or your words, sir? On the -
570. Q. I’m not -
A. I did not -
571. Q. I’m not intending to argue with you but you told her certain things.
A. I did not tell her anything in order for her to make out her affidavit.
572. Q. You told her that you were a venture capitalist?
A. Well, I am a venture capitalist at times, yes, and she’s been around me for ten years.
573. Q. Sorry?
A. I said she’s been around me for ten years so she could make that assumption on her own.
574. Q. So you told your wife that you owned 255 Allison’s Point?
A. I told her it’s – I believed, as I always have, that it was being held for me and that I was the owner or the eventual owner as shares were being held in trust. I certainly didn’t tell her that but that’s exactly what I believed. I’ve had multiple discussions with Mr. Elio Miotto as when he would turn over the shares of 1530495.
575. Q. Just for off for a second.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

576. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Now do you discuss your business with your wife or don’t you?
A. Not normally, sir.
577. Q. So you don’t discuss things with your wife?
A. That’s not the question you asked me. You asked me if I discuss my business -
578. Q. I’m asking -
A. - and now you ask me a different question. I do discuss things with my wife.
579. Q. So – well, do you or don’t you?
A. What’s the question?
580. Q. Do you discuss your business affairs with your wife?
A. No.
581. Q. You don’t?
A. Not normally.
582. Q. Did you read over Elio’s affidavit of May 9th, 2007? Did you have a chance to scan it?
A. No.
583. Q. Do you want to take a moment?
A. No.
584. Q. Sorry?
A. I don’t really want to read it, sir. I’ll read it when I go home.
585. Q. Well, I want to ask you some questions about it.
A. Well then, go ahead and ask.
586. Q. Would your wife know anything about the matters deposed to in that affidavit by Elio Miotto?
A. I don’t know. I can’t speak for my wife, sir.
587. R Q. Okay. Did you send an e-mail on Friday, September 17th, 2004 to Marcello which said “By the way, for information purposes only, my wife is in full knowledge of the troubles with the pool”?
A. I have no idea but if that’s got Marcello’s name on it, you - my answer is I have nothing to say about Marcello DiFrancesco.
588. Q. I’m going to show you this e-mail -
A. I have nothing to say about the paper. It’s Marcello DiFrancesco who was my former lawyer who is now in your camp, my rights are being violated.
589. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, well mark that as the next exhibit.

EXHIBIT NO. 6 E-mail dated September 17th, 2004.

( produced and marked )


590. MR. ZELDIN: Q. So does your wife know about the pool or not?
A. She’s aware of a pool, yes.
591. Q. She’s aware of the pool. Is she aware of the problems with the pool?
A. Absolutely.
592. R Q. And what are those problems?
A. The pool is Marcello DiFrancesco. I decline to comment.
593. Q. I was waiting for that to come.
A. I’m sure you were, sir.
594. R Q. Why don’t you make the objection clearly on the record so we’ll hear it again? I’m not sure our reporter got it. Can you tell me who X is, please?
A. Marcello DeFrancesco is my former lawyer and I’m not going to discuss anything that has to do with Marcello DeFrancesco.
595. R Q. Alright, X is the mysterious banking figure that you say you know, according to what Elio Miotto says and according to all the various e-mails that you’ve sent. Is that not true?
A. I’m not going to discuss anything to do with Marcello DeFrancesco business, he’s my former lawyer.
596. Q. And I’m suggesting to you that you’re not answering the questions because there is no Mr. X.
A. Are you making that assumption, sir?
597. Q. I’m suggesting that to you, sir. Yes, or no?
A. What is it?
598. Q. You’re refusing to answer because there is no Mr. X and there was no investment pool?
A. No, I’m refusing to answer because Mr. DeFrancesco’s my former attorney and he is providing you information, therefore, violating my rights.
599. R Q. How about Jeff McCargar, is he your former attorney?
A. Uh -
600. Q. We’ve already established that and the letter is addressed to him as well.
A. That has no bearing, sir.
601. Q. Looking at Exhibit C of Elio Miotto’s affidavit of May 9th, 2007 -
A. It’s made out Marcello DiFrancesco and there’s confidentiality agreements – confidentiality agreements bound with it.
602. Q. Okay.
A. And I will not discuss anything that is pertinent to Marcello DeFrancesco.
603. Q. So what you’re telling me is if you run a fraud scheme and -
A. I’m not telling you anything.
604. Q. - you have people sign confidentiality agreements, then asfaras you’re concerned you don’t have to answer for your fraudulent behaviour, is that correct?
MR. REID: That’s not what he was saying. He was indicating that you obtained information from Marcello DeFrancesco. He doesn’t want to answer any questions based on information you’ve received from his former lawyer. Another objection to questions about the pool had to do with the fact that it’s a subject of a Toronto lawsuit in which judgement was obtained.
605. MR. ZELDIN: That’s right.
MR. REID: We’re restricting questions to his affidavit which has to do with a landlord and tenant application.
606. MR. ZELDIN: Yes, which he defends on the basis of – of an affidavit in which he’s mentioned the pool on several occasions and mentioned business activities with Elio Miotto.
MR. REID: That’s right, he’s saying that I was – there is a pool, he was in business with Elio.
607. MR. ZELDIN: But he won’t give us any details.
MR. REID: That is the subject of another lawsuit.
608. MR. ZELDIN: Okay. Because the whole pool was all a big scam wasn’t it?
THE DEPONENT: That’s absolutely incorrect.
BY MR. ZELDIN:
609. R Q. Okay, how can you demonstrate, sir, that it wasn’t a scam? You can’t demonstrate that, can you?
A. Anything to do with the pool, Marcello Defrancesco, I will not speak about.
610. Q. How about the pool and Elio Miotto?
A. Marcello DeFrancesco is the pool, sir.
611. Q. Okay.
A. So when you mention the pool, it’s Marcello DeFrancesco.
612. Q. How about Jeff McCargar?
A. What about Jeff McCargar?
613. Q. He’s not here. He’s not a party to this lawsuit.
A. Well what about Jeff McCargar?
614. Q. Did he lose money as well in the pool?
A. Jeff McCargar has never lost any money asfaras I know, sir.
615. Q. He’s never lost any money?
A. No.
616. R Q. How about other people who -
A. I don’t know.
617. Q. - lost money in IFPA or International Financial Privacy Association?
A. You’re talking about things, sir, that I have no comment on.
618. Q. Now, not to make too fine a point of it, you did sign a release of Marcello DeFrancesco’s wife and relating to 141187(sic) Ontario?
A. There was a series of documents. I don’t have them in front of me.
619. Q. But you mentioned it yourself?
A. Yeah, if you want to provide it to me, I could be more clear.
620. Q. Okay, we’ll see if I have it here.
A. I hope so.
621. Q. We can go off the record for a moment.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

622. MR. ZELDIN: Q. So I showed you a release dated April 21, 2006.
A. Yes.
623. Q. Okay, and that was your signature on the release?
A. Yes.
624. Q. And you released and forever discharged Marcello DeFrancesco, Gabriella Pierantoni, and 1411187 Ontario Inc.?
A. I signed the bottom of that document and it was in conjunction with about 12 other documents where we all mutually released each other which since then, Marcello DeFrancesco, Elio Miotto, and David Miotto have broken the other agreements. And the interesting note of that particular document is whatever that date was, April 21st, 2006, of the release, that was the only release that was ever signed for 1411187; and interesting to note that without my approval, in the year 2002, two mortgages were put on 255 Allison Point Road -
625. Q. You’re saying now?
A. - with that – with that company. No, I’m not saying now, in 2002, and your client signed both of them.
626. Q. Okay, so you’re saying -
A. Illegally - Illegally put -
627. Q. So you’re saying now that it was without your approval but back in 2002, you were all friends, weren’t you?
A. Well, if we need to see some documentation I’d be happy to look at it.
628. Q. You were all friends in 2002?
A. Oh, we were. Yeah, we were very good friends. There’s two mortgages, one for $540,000.00 and the other for $705,000.00 that were legally put on without my knowledge.
629. Q. But you released the company anyways?
A. Not till 2006.
630. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, let’s go off for a moment.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

631. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Do you have anything else that you want to add to any of your answers that you’ve given?
A. Yes, I’d like your client to live up to his responsibilities and get on with this.
632. Q. Okay, you don’t have any other clarifications of any answers?
A. No, I don’t, sir.
633. Q. I’m not sure if we made it clear on the record, in that release – I think I indicated it released Marcello DeFrancesco who you don’t want to talk about, Gabriella Pierantoni and 1411187 Ontario Inc. from any claims by reason of existence of a trust agreement. Your wife doesn’t work and you’re not making any money right now, is that true?
A. Um – the last couple of months have been a little tough due to this lawsuit. Uh -
634. Q. Well, you’re not – you’re not making any money because you’re working on some highly secretive computer deal or something?
A. That’s not how I explained it, sir, but if you need to emphasize it that way -
635. Q. Some high tech thing?
A. Yeah. It’s just called private information so right now I am working on a project that is not paying, that’s correct.
636. Q. So you don’t have any money, do you?
A. No, I don’t.
637. Q. So you don’t have any money for rent, is that the case?
A. Uh – I don’t have any money but if I needed to rent, if I struck an agreement to rent a property, then I would probably have to borrow it to start, yeah.
638. Q. But you don’t have any money of your own, that’s what you’re saying?
A. I don’t have any money.
639. Q. Alright.
A. What does mean mean, sir? Like what – how much money are we talking about? I have 310 bucks in my pocket.
640. Q. You don’t have enough money to pay rent at a premises like 255 Allison’s?
A. No, I prefer to – I will – I would prefer to purchase 255 Allison’s pursuant to other agreements but, no, at this time I do not.
641. Q. But you don’t have any money?
A. No.
642. Q. Do you?
A. But if a reasonable -
643. Q. Where would you borrow the money from?
A. I don’t know, I’d have to figure that out if I needed to borrow the money, sir.
644. Q. Okay, how are you going to borrow money if you don’t have any income and your wife doesn’t work?
A. Well, I would have to figure out who to borrow from and the possibilities of where the funds are coming from.
645. Q. Okay, so maybe someone’s holding money in your name and that’s the reason why you’re saying that you can borrow the money; and what you really mean to say is that you would – you’ve got money hidden away?
A. Did you just speak for me? I’m unclear. It sounded like you spoke for me again, sir.
646. Q. I didn’t speak for you. I’m suggesting to you that either you’ve hidden money away by putting it into someone else’s name or you don’t have any money at all?
A. Well I’ve just told you, I don’t have any money.
647. Q. You don’t have any money.
A. No.
648. Q. You would have to borrow?
A. I would have to borrow.
649. Q. And you don’t really have any collateral?
A. I don’t have any collateral, no.
650. Q. Okay, and your wife doesn’t have any collateral?
A. Well, I don’t know, you’ll have to talk to my wife.
651. Q. You don’t know, do you?
A. No.
652. R Q. She’s got no collateral?
A. I’m pretty sure she doesn’t, sir, yes.
MR. REID: Counsel, I’m instructing him not to answer. It sounds like examination in aid of execution.
653. MR. ZELDIN: Well, it’s not an examination in aid of execution. And I didn’t want to know how much he had in his pocket at the time either.
THE DEPONENT: Sure you did.
654. MR. ZELDIN: Q. So then if an order was obtained against you for costs, you would have no way of paying it, is that what you’re saying?
A. Right now, I wouldn’t. Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
655. Q. That’s exactly the case?
A. Yes, absolutely.
656. R Q. Why did you buy the lot in Panama – in the Bahamas?
A. Marcello DeFrancesco is my former lawyer. He’s now working with you, sir. I cannot answer that question as it violates my rights.
657. Q. Did you file income tax returns last year?
A. No, I have not file income tax returns last year.
658. Q. Have you filed income tax returns in any of the last ten years?
A. I’m not sure of the amounts of years but I haven’t filed in the last few years.
659. Q. I want you to produce your income tax returns.
MR. REID: Well, he just indicated he hasn’t filed.
660. R MR. ZELDIN: Q. Well, I want you to make the inquiry with Revenue Canada to – for the last ten years’ worth of returns?
MR. REID: Well, he’ll refuse to do that. He doesn’t want to draw attention to himself or -
661. MR. ZELDIN: It doesn’t – doesn’t draw attention -
THE DEPONENT: It’s not going to matter anyhow. But when – can you just clarify for me one second, sir.
MR. REID: What you’re suggesting -
THE DEPONENT: Can you - Can you sit there and tell me what I have to do?
MR. REID: What you’re suggesting is you want Revenue Canada to verify that he hasn’t filed returns?
662. MR. ZELDIN: Yes, that there’s no returns on file for those years. I think you’ve seen the document that a person obtains from Revenue Canada when they make an inquiry about themselves. You’ve seen it in Family Law cases, have you not, Mr. Reid?
MR. REID: I’m just –
663. MR. ZELDIN: You get a – either you get a printout of - detailing your filing on, usually on one or two pages, or you get a one-page document says there’s nothing on file for that year.
THE DEPONENT: I’m happy to – to take an order from any judge about anything sir, so -
664. MR. ZELDIN: Okay.
THE DEPONENT: Okay? There’s no problem there.
BY MR. ZELDIN:
665. Q. So tell me how -
MR. REID: I guess so that means the answer is taking under advisement.
666. MR. ZELDIN: No, the answer – that’s treated as a refusal. Either it’s yes or it’s a big no. And that was a big no.
MR. REIDL: So far.
667. R MR. ZELDIN: Q. So tell me how a man who has no financial records and has no visible means of support was able to acquire a property, or cause a company to acquire a property in the Bahamas for - worth about 800, $900,000.00, or whatever it is?
A. Marcello DeFrancesco was my former lawyer who’s -
668. Q. Mm, hmm.
A. - now working with you and has provided information to you that is – violates my rights, so I refuse to answer.
669. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, subject to the refusals, those are my questions. We’ll order a transcript of that.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcription from the record made by sound recording apparatus, to the best of my skill and ability.


________________________________
Bonnie Bilawey
Certified Court Reporter.

LEGAL REPORTING SERVICES
*** Photostatic copies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid unless they bear the original signature of Bonnie Bilawey, and accordingly are in direct violation of Ontario Regulations 587/91, Courts of Justice Act, January 1, 1990.


Internal Administrator
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011
Joined: 10/12/2010
Posts: 5780


Posted: 3/5/2009 7:13:56 PM

By: boxman

Jordan Bionda wants us to believe he is involved in multi million dollar deals when he didn't even graduate from high school and has trouble spelling his own name read the transcript while he is under oath in a court proceeding as a result of trying to steal someones money and the subsequent 2 million dollar judgement against him

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

1530495 ONTARIO INC.


Applicant
- and -


JORDAN BIONDA also known as JORDI BIONDA, also known as JORDY BIONDA, MARCIA MACKESY also known as MARIE MACKESY


Respondent

- - - - - - - - - -

This is the Cross-Examination of JORDAN BIONDA, one of the respondents herein, on his affidavit, taken at the offices of Lee, Roche, Kelly, in Bracebridge Ontario by Legal Reporting Services, on the 11th day of May, 2007.

- - - - - - - - - -

APPEARANCES:

M. A. REID for the Applicant

D. ZELDIN, Esq. for the Respondent


ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: David Miotto.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

J. BIONDA Examination
by MR. ZELDIN pages 3 to 118

- - - - -

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NUMBER DESCRIPTION FOUND ON PAGE NO.

1 E-mail dated October 3, 2006 75

2 E-mail dated May 22nd, 2003. 83

3 E-mail dated September 30th, 2003. 85

4 Document dated August 14th, 2003. 86

5 Affidavit of Marcia Mackesy, 101
dated May 8th, 2007.

6 E-mail dated September 17th, 2004. 104

- - - - - - -

REFUSALS can be found on pages: 26, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 44, 46, 51, 53, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66, 70, 73, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 104, 105, 106, 108, 1l0, 115, 116, 117.


- - - - - - - -





THE DEPONENT: I’m just curious as to what David does for the numbered company?
1. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, I wished – we’re on the record. It’s my examination. Please swear your client.
MR. REID: Well, my client would feel better if David Miotto wasn’t here.
2. MR. ZELDIN: Well, it’s a corporate entity. The Corporation can designate as its representative. He has knowledge of all of the events and it’s not his – it’s not even his examination, so he’s entitled – so, essentially, it’s the Corporate entity which is the applicant in this case, is entitled to designate who it wants and the case law suggests that their concern is when there is a representative of the company being examined, that the person be someone who actually has knowledge of events. So if you -
MR. REID: But -
3. MR. ZELDIN: And so, essentially, what I’m telling you is that if you’re trying to make an argument at this point or an objection, it is not your objection to make. The Corporation is entitled to designate who it wants and, moreover and above, he has full knowledge of all these events and -
MR. REID: But I mean someone who’s being examined doesn’t have to subject themselves to anyone coming in off the street to listen in to the examination.
4. MR. ZELDIN: He’s far from anyone off the street. He’s a person with full knowledge of the events who’s been designated by the Corporation to be here today.
MR. REID: It’s not the situation where he’s been designated for questioning. He’s actually observing someone else being examined.
5. MR. ZELDIN: He’s here to provide instructions to the Corporation’s solicitor by virtue of his knowledge of the events and by virtue of the authority given to him by the company.
MR. REID: Well, let me just talk to my client about that.
6. MR. ZELDIN: I will indicate right now on the record that if your client does not wish to proceed with Mr. Miotto here, his refusal to answer questions will be at his peril. We can go off the record so you can have a moment.
(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

MR. REID: Mr. Bionda and I have conferred about the issue. As much as he would prefer to have Elio Miotto here as the person he understands to be the sole shareholder and directing mind of the numbered company that’s the applicant in this matter, he is prepared to proceed with David Miotto present in the room. Now, on that basis, I will swear in Mr. Bionda.

JORDAN BIONDA: Affirmed
EXAMINATION BY MR. ZELDIN
7. Q. Okay, sir, you provided your affirmation. Do you recognize that it has the same force and effect as if you swore an oath?
A. That’s what I just did, the affirmation.
8. Q. I’m asking you a question. Do you recognize that it has the same force and effect as an oath?
A. Are we talking about the affirmation I just did?
9. Q. Yes. Yes, we are. That was my question.
A. Then my answer is yes.
10. Q. Okay, what’s you address?
A. 255 Allison’s Point Road, Huntsville, Ontario.
11. Q. And what’s the postal code there?
A. P1H 1B5.
12. Q. And what’s your full name?
A. Didn’t I just give my full name.
13. Q. Is it Jordan Bionda?
A. I’ve already sworn what my name is.
14. Q. Counsel, maybe you can help me out? Is there a middle name?
A. My full name I just gave.
15. Q. Well, what’s your full name, sir?
A. My full name is Jordan Bionda.
16. Q. Do you have a middle name?
A. No.
17. Q. Okay, why are you being difficult about that, sir?
A. I – I swore at the start, sir, that my name was Jordan Bionda and you’ve asked me three times what my full name is.
18. Q. I’m asking you why you’re being difficult. I had to ask you three times because you’ve been cagey about it. And have you always resided in Huntsville, Ontario?
A. No.
19. Q. Where else have you resided, sir?
A. I’ve resided in the United States. I resided in British Columbia. I’ve resided in various – various places. I’m 46 years old.
He has resided in the Bahamas and lived there for 4 to 6 months at a time and sometimes more from 1999 to 2003

20. Q. Okay, and your date of birth is?
A. December 9th, 1960.
21. Q. And in what places in the United States have you resided?
A. In the State of Oregon.
22. Q. In what town?
A. I’m not sure. It was when I was three years old.
MR. REID: Can I ask how the history of his residence is relevant to this application?
23. MR. ZELDIN: Well, your client’s background is important. Your client claims to be a businessman. I want to get the most, by way of background, information regarding his experiences in life and regarding his education, which we’ll get to, and regarding his – his occupation. So where he’s resided and, essentially, a personal history is appropriate in my respectful opinion.
MR. REID: Well, to a degree but –
BY MR. ZELDIN:
24. Q. Okay, what – what other places have you resided in the United States, sir?
A. I don’t think any. As I said, I was three to five years old, so I’m not quite sure.
25. Q. Okay, that’s fine, but you were born here in Ontario?
A. No, I was not.
26. Q. Where were you born?
A. I was born in British Columbia.
27. Q. And did you ever reside there when you were an adult?
A. Um – relevance?
MR. REID: Well, can you just speed it up a bit with what – you want an understanding of what he does for a living.
28. MR. ZELDIN: I’ll get there. I’ll get there.
MR. REID: Okay.
29. MR. ZELDIN: Q. If we start from now, you’re residing now in Huntsville and for how long have you been residing in Huntsville?
A. Oh, a number of years, 10, 15 years, I don’t know.
30. Q. And can you be a little bit – I think the reporter wants us to keep our voices up.
BY THE REPORTER: There’s a background noise there.
31. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Can you be any more specific as to how long you resided in Huntsville?
A. Yes, actually, I think I resided off and on but I lived in Toronto for a few years. So I’ve resided in Huntsville since 2002 till present.
32. Q. And how long had you been in Toronto for?
A. I believe since 1995 or 1996.
33. Q. And where did you reside at that time when you were in Toronto?
A. I don’t remember. I lived in Rosedale. The address escapes me. It’s been some time.
34. Q. And before you lived in Toronto, where were you?
A. Huntsville.
35. Q. So you were in Huntsville for a stretch before Toronto?
A. That’s correct.
36. Q. And do you know – do you remember how long that stretch was, the pre-Toronto stretch?
A. Oh, it would be probably 15 years. I don’t – I can’t hit it right on the button.
37. Q. Have you lived anywhere else other than these places that you’ve told me about?
A. Not as a permanent resident, no.

HE LIVED IN THE BAHAMAS AND IS AFRAID TO SAY IT … IT BRINGS HIM CLOSE TO THE IFPA FIASCO
38. Q. Where have you resided temporarily?
A. In Huntsville, I’ve resided temporarily at a few places. In Toronto at a few places.

WHAT FEW PLACES…..
39. Q. Mm, hmm. So you were in a few addresses while you were in Toronto?
A. Absolutely.
40. Q. Do you remember any of those addresses?
A. I do not.
41. Q. You don’t remember one place?
A. Not the exact address, no, I don’t.
42. Q. Do you remember the approximate area?
A. Yeah, York Mills and downtown, and on the outskirts of Rosedale as I indicated earlier.
HE LIVED AT THE OLD BARCARDI COMPLEX IN NASSAU BAHAMAS SURELY ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO REMEMBER THAT ……

43. Q. So you can’t recall your last address in Toronto even though it would have been about five – five years ago?
A. No, not the exact address.
44. Q. Do you remember the street?
A. Shady - Shady Road.
45. Q. Was it a house or an apartment?
A. It was a house.
46. Q. Did you own it?
A. No.
47. Q. Did you rent it?
A. Yes.
48. Q. Who did you rent it from?

RENT WAS PAID TO AN ESTATE AND HE USED THE MONEY HE RECEIVED FROM BRIAN TURNER WHICH HE HAD INVESTED WITH BRIAN TURNER TO PAY FOR HIS RENT I AM SURE OF IT
A. I don’t recall.
49. Q. Who did you make the cheques payable to?
A. I don’t recall.
50. Q. Did you pay for it? Did you pay your rent?
A. I don’t recall. I’m sure I paid rent as I lived there.
51. Q. You’re writing a note, sir?
A. Yeah, I’m trying to remember things. I’m allowed to write notes to myself. Sometimes it sparks memory to help this process along.
52. Q. And where were you educated, sir?
A. What is this in relevance to in my affidavit, sir?
53. Q. You have a lawyer here and your lawyer is here to make objections if he sees fit on your behalf. I’m not going to enter into a debate with you.
MR. REID: Well, we registered an objection a few moments ago about going into an extensive background. I’ve given you some leeway -
54. MR. ZELDIN: Well, this is the first question I’ve asked about occupation and so I really can’t –
MR. REID: Well, education, I -
55. MR. ZELDIN: I really can’t see the problem with asking this gentleman’s education.
MR. REID: I don’t have a problem with him asking about your education, like as long as it’s brief and to the point and -
THE DEPONENT: I went to Huntsville High School.
56. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Do you remember when you graduated?
A. I didn’t graduate.
57. Q. How far did you go?
A. I was three and a half credits shy of grade 12.
58. Q. And that was some time ago when they still had grade 13, is that correct?
A. I’m not familiar with the school system.
59. Q. I see. So you don’t remember whether they had a grade 13 system at the time or not?
A. I didn’t – I – I left school before grade 12, I don’t know.
60. Q. After you left high school, did you – did you have any other formal education?
A. No.
61. Q. You were never enrolled in any courses?
A. No, not to my recollection.
62. Q. Okay, so what have you done after high school?
A. Can you be a little more specific?
63. Q. Did you go out into the work force after high school?
A. I’ve been self-employed pretty much my whole life or with a family business.
64. Q. Okay, what – what types of self-employment have you been in?
A. The restaurant business.
65. Q. Whereabouts?
A. In Huntsville.
66. Q. And did you operate a restaurant?
A. Between my family and myself, we’ve operated numerous restaurants.
67. Q. Did you ever own it?
A. I owned one restaurant.
68. Q. What restaurant was that?
A. It was a restaurant called The Pier.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT RESTAURANT THE PIER WHEN WAS IT CLOSED DOWN OR WAS IT SOLD AND TO WHO

69. Q. And when you say “the family”, what do you mean by your family?
A. My mother and father.
70. Q. When did you cease working in the restaurant business?
A. It’d be in the late 80’s.
71. Q. And so what did you do at that point when you stopped working in the restaurant business?
A. I worked for myself.
72. Q. Doing what?
A. Various businesses, primarily buy and sell.
73. Q. What do you buy and what do you sell?
A. I would go to auctions and buy whatever I felt was a good price on something that I could resell.
WHO FINANCED THE PURCHASE OF THE GOODS YOU WOULD BUY AND SELL….WHO WHOULD FINANCE THE GOODS UNTIL YOU SOLD THEM AND AT WHAT COST

74. Q. And did you carry on business under a trade name or under a corporation?
A. Along the way, a few corporations but I – I can’t recall them now; and at some times I operated, depending on the situation, just out of pocket. Again, it was a long time ago.
75. Q. And what are you doing now? Is that a hard question? You’re taking a long time to – to answer.
A. Would you like me to answer in agreement to you speeding me up or would you like me to answer?
76. Q. I’m wondering why it’s a hard question to answer?
A. I’m considering the relevance of the question.
77. Q. Well, it’s highly relevant.
A. Why is it relevant to the -
78. Q. I’m not going to debate it with you. What do you -
MR. REID: Why don’t you just let him figure out in his mind how to describe what he does because it may be not the standard job and let him answer the question.
THE DEPONENT: Presently, I’ve been working on a business concept that requires a lot of work at home and so I’m not employed. I’m designing the concept.
THE CONCEPT IS HOW TO DEFRAUD OTHERS AND MAKE IT APPEAR LIKE A REAL DEAL OR LIKE A REAL INVESTMENT LIKE HE HAS ALWAYS DONE

79. MR. ZELDIN: Q. And what is – what is that concept?
A. It’s classified.
CLASSIFIED MEANING WHAT./…….THAT NASA OR THE CIA OR THE NSA HAVE COMMISSIONED HIM TO DO THIS OR MAYBE JAMES BOND HIMSELF HAS TAKEN HIM ON AS A SIDE KICK….

80. Q. Well, you have to answer it.
A. It’s in the high-tech and it has information that is – I don’t know the right word – just a second -
81. Q. No, Mr. Bionda, you have to answer the question. What are you doing? What kind of business is it that you’re doing right now?
MR. REID: You don’t need to give away classified information but you can try to describe -
THE DEPONENT: Well, I’m designing a – a computer gaming situation that is very classified and I won’t be giving away the contents of it. So I don’t understand the question.
WHAT IS THE GAMING SITUATION UNDER…I.E WHO IS PAYING YOU TO DESIGN IT AND IS THIS YOUR CONCEPT OR A CONCEPT OF SOMEONE ELSE AND YOU ARE WRITING THE COMPUTER CODE FOR IT HOW FAR ALONG IS THE COMPUTER PROGRAM AND WHO DOES IT BELONG TO WHO HAS PAID FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROGRAM AND IS THIS THE PROGRAM YOU WERE WORKING ON THAT INFOBALANCE SUED YOU ON

82. MR. ZELDIN: Q. You understand it full well, sir.
MR. REID: It’s supposed to be questions of Mr. Bionda that -
THE DEPONENT: Is that an assumption?
83. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I’m suggesting to you you know full well what you’re doing -
A. Do you have any questions for me?
84. Q. - and you understand the question fully.
A. Do you have any questions other than assumptions?
85. Q. Mr. Bionda, I would suggest to you not – not to try to parry and just to answer the questions.
MR. REID: To be fair, Mr. Zeldin, you made a comment and if that inspired him to respond an adversarial way, perhaps if you don’t make any more comments to his answers -
86. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Well, what were you doing in – in or about the year 2000, sir, as an occupation?
A. I’m thinking at the moment. That’s seven years ago. I think I was looking for business opportunities.

HE WAS TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE FIASCO HE CREATED WITH IFPA

87. Q. And what did you do after you looked for business opportunities?
A. I continue to look for business opportunities to this day.
88. Q. Okay, have you been in business since the year 2000?
A. Describe “business”?
89. Q. Well, you’ve told me you’re self-employed. Have you been working since the year 2000?
A. I work every day.
90. Q. And what do you do, what kind of work?
A. I look for opportunities for myself and if I like something I see, I either get involved; or, if it’s a buy and sell, I buy it, I resell it.
91. Q. What do you tell your wife that you do?
A. I don’t tell my wife anything I do; she sees. If I’m – I don’t know how to answer that, but I look for business opportunities.
92. Q. Do you have a resume?
A. No, I usually work for myself; therefore, I don’t need a resume.
93. Q. Well, what other businesses have you been involved in other than the ones you’ve told me about for the last seven years?
A. I’ve been in a number of business opportunities, businesses, none that – that -
94. Q. Can you keep your voice up? I can barely hear you now.
A. I said I’ve been in a number of business opportunities or businesses over the last few years, nothing specific.
HOW CAN SOMEONE BE IN A BUSINESS OR A NUMBER OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES BUT AT THE SAME TIME NOTHING SPECIFIC…..IS A NON SPECIFIC BUSINESS A BUSINESS….WHAT DOES THAT MEAN ?

95. Q. Do you support your family?
A. I do, when I can.
SO WHEN HE CANT SUPPORT HIS FAMILY WHO SUPPORTS THEM….OR DO THEY JUST STARVE

96. Q. So how do you support your family?
A. Well, in whatever business I’m involved in -
97. Q. Yes.
A. - I would assume I would make money and, therefore, support my family.

SO HOW MUCH MONEY HAS HE MADE OR EARNED IN THE LAST 5 YEARS THAT HAS SUPPORTED HIS FAMILY
98. Q. Okay, so far you’ve told me absolutely nothing about any business that you’re in or any business opportunity. All you’ve – you’ve been as vague as the wind. What type of businesses have you been in in the last seven years?
A. I’ve been in various businesses in the last seven years.
99. Q. What are they?
A. As I stated earlier, buy and sell. If I see something that I want to buy I’ll buy it -
100. Q. Okay, I want you to name one business, one corporation, one company or a trade name that you’ve used?
A. I don’t – I don’t see the relevance of -
101. Q. Well, I do. Your wife says you’re a venture capitalist. What’s a venture capitalist?
A. Somebody who buys and sells and looks for opportunity and provides financing, if they see something they would like to finance.
HAS HE ACTED AS A VENTURE CAPITALIST AND HAS HE PROVIDED FINANCING FOR ANYTHING IN THE LAST 5 YEARS AND IF SO WHO AND WHAT DID HE FINANCE

102. Q. And that’s what you do?
A. I do various things. I buy and sell. I look for opportunities. If I see something I’d like to finance, I figure out the financing, look at – look for a profit for myself.

HOW DO YOU FINANCE THE PROJECTS THAT YOU LIKE DO YOU PROVIDE FINANCING OR DO YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE THE FINANCING AND HOW DO YOU BUILD IN A PROFIT FOR YOUR SELF DO YOU HAVE A FORMULA IS THERE A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO HOW YOU FIGURE YOUR PROFITS AND WHAT YOU WILL MAKE FROM A DEAL


103. q. Okay, what kind of businesses or opportunities have you financed?
A. I’ve financed various opportunities but that again -
104. Q. Mm, hmm, I knew you said you’ve done various opportunities. You haven’t given me one straight answer yet.
A. Is that opinion?
105. Q. Can you provide us with a little bit more detail?
A. No, I can’t. I cannot.
MR. REID: Why don’t you ask him about his business with Mr. Miotto?
106. MR. ZELDIN: Counsel, it’s my examination. I’ll conduct it as I see fit.
MR. REID: Well, it’s got to be relevant.
107. MR. ZELDIN: I’ve given him full opportunity to tell me about all the businesses he’s been in over the last seven years and he hasn’t told me one.
MR. REID: Well, I’ll tell you what our concern is for the record. There’s another lawsuit going on in Toronto which we would like to have consolidated with the Bracebridge applications which is not being consented to. So we’re not going to allow you to ask questions that assist with the Toronto action.
DID MARK REID EVER ASK FOR A CONSENT TO CONSOLIDATE THE ACTIONS IF SO WHEN WAS IT ASKED FOR AND HOW CAN YOU CONSOLIDATE AN ACTION WHEN THE ISSUES ARE SO DIVERGENT ONE IS A LANDLORD AND TENANT MATTER THE OTHER IS A FRAUD MATTER

108. MR. ZELDIN: Well -
MR. REID: And I – it sounds a little bit like you’re fishing for examination in aid of execution.
109. MR. ZELDIN: Your client stated on several occasions in his affidavit sworn April 30th, 2000, sir, that he was in business with Elio.
MR. REID: So why don’t you ask him about the business with Elio?
110. MR. ZELDIN: I’ve given him full opportunity to tell me any type – about any type of business he’s been involved in.
MR. REID: Well I interpreted that to mean other business besides Elio, that’s -
111. MR. ZELDIN: Well, the witness understood fully. In any event -
THE DEPONENT: Is that -
112. MR. ZELDIN: I’m - I’m just going to advise right now that -
THE DEPONENT: You’re speaking for me again, sir. You suggested I understand something fully. You have no idea.
113. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I’m not going to argue with you, sir.
A. Then stop speaking for me, please.
114. Q. I will indicate that I’m going to press on with my questions and the record will speak for itself. Now, the business that you talked about in your material, that was the pool that you talked about?
A. Whereabouts in the - is it?
115. Q. Paragraph 24. Have you got a copy of your affidavit there?
A. I do.
116. Q. Okay, and it’s sworn April 30th, 2007?
MR. REID: It’s on the last page.
THE DEPONENT: It is.
117. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, and you swore – and when you swore it, you swore to tell the truth?
A. I - Yes -
118. Q. Okay, and you -
A. - of course.
119. Q. And you recognize you were taking an oath?
A. Of course.
120. Q. Okay, and you swore that before Mr. Reid?
A. I did.
121. Q. So you’re familiar with the document, are you?
A. I have it in my hand.
122. Q. Okay.
A. I’m reading it right now.
123. Q. Do you want to take a few moments to look it over?
A. No.
124. Q. Do you want to answer my question?
A. If you ask one.
125. Q. I did and you interrupted. You asked me where it said that you were in business with Elio, and I pointed out that it was -
A. Yeah, I’m waiting for your question.
126. Q. - paragraph 24.
A. Yes, but what was the question you’ve asked?
127. Q. Well, I asked if the – if it was the thing you called the pool? Is that the business you’re talking about with Elio?
A. In point 24?
128. Q. Yes, paragraph 24.
A. Just a moment -
129. Q. Okay, no. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
A. Am I not allowed to -
130. Q. You’re not allowed to speak to your lawyer right now.
A. Oh, I’m sorry. I thought that was the whole judicial process but that’s okay. Any business – this particular matter is pertaining to -
131. Q. I’m going to read out the last sentence for you, sir, to help you out. “To be specific, Elio was expecting to earn a profit of 2.2 million dollars from the investment we referred as The Pool.”
A. That’s correct.
132. Q. And I take it that should have read “which we referred to as The Pool”. Is that correct?
A. That is correct, point 24.
133. Q. So what is the pool, sir?
A. I have a problem with the line of questioning.
134. Q. No, no, if you have an objection, your lawyer will make it for you.
MR. REID: Well, I’m listening carefully at this point because again we don’t want to get into questions that are involved in the Toronto action; and the pool seems to be more the Toronto action. It’s more of a description in this – background information in this affidavit for the application.
135. MR. ZELDIN: He mentions it on several occasions in this affidavit. Part – his main defence, essentially, is that he doesn’t have to pay rent because of other business dealings with Elio; and I’m entitled to ask and, frankly, to be given full rein and free rein to ask whatever questions I want regarding these business opportunities and I will be -
MR. REID: But you -
136. MR. ZELDIN: - doing so in an effort to demonstrate that his affidavit is less than reliable.
MR. REID: Okay, well for the record, we would like to consolidate the Toronto action with the Bracebridge application. That is being resisted. I don’t think it’s fair for you to – for your client to resist that consolidation and yet be able to ask questions in this matter that can be used in the Toronto action. So there will -
137. MR. ZELDIN: Well, if you -
MR. REID: - only be background information provided which has more to do with the Toronto action.
138. MR. ZELDIN: Well, sir, if you have problems you can object to the questions. Until there’s an objection, I will persist in asking the question. I want an answer.
THE DEPONENT: Based on my – here’s your – here’s your answer, sir. Based on the line of questioning, I feel my rights are being violated due to my former attorney, Marcello DiFrancesco who has a great deal – has a great deal to do with this line of questioning and it’s been duly noted and seen and documented that Mr. DiFrancesco is working with Mr. Miotto and 1530495 Ontario Inc., which I believe violates my rights. So I decline to answer the question.

HE IS OBJECTING TO ANSWER A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING HE RAISES IN HIS AFFIDAVIT SAYING THAT HE AND ELIO HAD BUSINESS TOGETHER AND BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE POOL HE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO BE IMMUNE FROM ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT IT SO WE CANNOT TEST THE VERACITY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND WE ARE ESSENTIALLY BEING ASKED TO TAKE THE AFFIDAVIT AS CREDIBLE ON ITS FACE WITHOUT TESTING IT…….SO THE ANALOGY IS TO HIRE A LAWYER…….TELL HIM WHAT YOU ARE DOING …….COMMIT RAMPANT FRAUD AND NEVER ANSWER A QUESTION BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH ISSUES WHICH MAY……AND I MEAN MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE LAWYER…..???? IS THAT WHAT HE IS SAYING???
MR. REID: I think what he’s saying is that solicitor/client privilege has been violated and he’s – doesn’t want to answer questions in which he thinks information was obtained from his former lawyer.

WHAT HAS BEEN VIOLATED….WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT ANYTHING WAS SAID BY MARCELLO DI FRANCESCO AND OR THAT I VIOLATED ANY SO CALLED PRIVILEGE OR THAT I BREACHED EVEN AN IMPLICIT TERM OF PRIVILEGE IF ONE EXISTED……HAVE THEY SHOWN THAT I WAS ACTING FOR BIONDA AND IN WHAT CAPACITY …… WHERE IS THE RETAINER AGREEMENT HAS HE PAID ME ONE CENT TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTRACT OF SOLICITOR AND CLIENT ….AND WHERE IS THE PRIVILEGE WHEN A CLIENT COMMITS A WRONG …..ARE LAWYERS TO BE BOUND UP IN THE DEEDS AS FILTHY AS THEY ARE …OF THEIR CLIENTS…..IS THAT WHAT WE ARE PROTECTING
THE DEPONENT: That is exactly what I mean.
139. MR. ZELDIN: Thank you. We’ll go off the record for a moment.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

140. R MR. ZELDIN: Q. So you’re objecting to answer any questions about the pool?
A. I’m objecting to answering any questions for which my former attorney who is now, in layman’s terms, sitting in your camp, that has anything to do with – anything that Marcello DiFrancesco has anything to do with –

SO WHAT HE IS SAYING IS THAT HE WILL NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN BY SOMEONE MORE CREDIBLE THAT HE THAT HE IS LYING AND MISLEADING EVERYONE AND THAT GIVEN THAT HE KNOWNS I HOLD THE TRUTH HE WONT WANT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR FEAR THAT THE TRUTH WILL EVENTUALLY COME OUT
141. Q. Well -
A. - which is every bit of business I’ve done with your clients. He is now noted, cited. He’s sitting in your camp. Call him what you want. Call him a confidante. Call him whatever you want but he’s working with Mr. Elio Miotto for sure. He sat with you in the previous two court situations. I saw it visually myself on the first one on April – in April 30th, and I didn’t attend May 8th and Mr. DiFrancesco was with your client again, speaking, talking with yourself. So, therefore, my rights are being violated.
WHAT DOES HE KNOW I WAS IN COURT AND SAT WITH ELIO MIOTTO I COULD HAVE BEEN UNDER SUBPEONA FOR ALL HE KNOWS AND I MAY HAVE TAKEN THE STAND AND SAID NOTHING…….I MAY HAVE BEEN USED AS A PROP…..ONLY TO LOOK LIKE I AM INTERESTED SO HE REFUSES TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS TO DO WITH ELIO AT ALL BECAUSE ITS EVERYTHING THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN SO HE WILL NOT TAKE THE STAND IN A TRIAL AND GIVE HIS SIDE OR SORRY WHAT HE WANTS IS TO TAKE THE STAND AND BECAUSE HE HAD A LAWYER HE IS TO BE BELIEVED WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE GIVEN TO THE OTHER SIDE AND SO BECAUSE HE IS JORDAN BIONDA WE SHOULD REVERT TO SOMETHING SHORT OF AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM BECAUSE IT IS BENEFICIAL FOR HIM AND ANY OTHER WAY HE WONT BE BELEIVED

Q. So you’re saying that because Mr. DiFrancesco spoke to me, your rights are being violated?
A. He didn’t speak to you, sir. He’s provided you information over and over and over again, as you know, and it’s isn’t speaking – he – when a tentative deal was being – on April 30th when your side took four hours to write a tentative settlement, as you called it, Mr. DiFrancesco was right in the middle of it and he was typing everything. He’s not speaking to you, sir. He’s working with you and you know it.
HE IS GUESSING THAT I AM ASSISTING AND HE HAS NO INDEPENDENT PROOF I COULD HAVE BEEN CHATTING WITH FRIENDS ON THE INTERNET WHEN MARK REID CAME IN THE LIBRARY I HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANYTHING TO ANYONE …..ELIO AND I SHARED SPACE SINCE BEFORE JORDAN CAME INTO OUR LIVES WE SHARED A FAX MACHINE AND FILE CABINETS…..SO WHAT ELIO HAS HE GOT FROM JORDAN AND OR JEFF DIRECTLY

142. Q. So, I fail to see how you can’t answer questions here but we may be leaving that for a judge to consider.
A. I think that’s a great idea.
143. Q. Did you take a large amount of money from Elio and David Miotto?
A. I’ve never taken any money from David and, especially, a large money from David and Elio Miotto – it’s Miotto, not Miotto.
144. Q. If you forgive my pronunciation, sir, did Elio ever send money to any companies or any persons based upon anything you said?
A. Can you say the question again, please?
145. Q. Did Mr. – did Elio Miotto - and forgive the pronunciation – ever provide any funds based upon something you said regarding an investment?
A. I have never seen anything from Mr. Miotto, any funds sent to me based – I’ve never seen any paperwork, anything sent to me and I’ve never accepted anything from Mr. Miotto except a $15,000.00 cheque that I had directed to my - my common-law wife, Marcia Mackesy, and that’s the only monies I’ve accepted from Elio Miotto.
146. Q. Okay. What about the monies that Mr. Miotto and David Miotto caused to be invested in a so-called pool?
A. I can’t comment on that but I think you should check with Marcello DiFrancesco because I never received such monies from either –

IS HE WAIVING THE PRIVILEGE IS HE ALLOWING YOU TO ASK ME THE QUESTION HE IS TELLING YOU TO CHECK WITH ME…..SO IS THAT A WAIVER
147. Q. No, I’m not talking about you personally, sir. Did you instruct Mr. DiFrancesco to send monies to Prima Verde?
A. No, I’ve – I cannot – no, I did not and, again, anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, I’ll not be commenting on as he’s my former lawyer who’s now disbarred since November, 2005, who is sitting in your camp, working against me.

HE ASSUMES I AM WORKING AGAINST HIM…..I AM WORKING FOR THE TRUTH NOT AGAINST ANYONE….
148. Q. So, asfaras you’re concerned, how was Elio involved in this business if he never invested any funds?
A. I’m not sure. I think you should ask Mr. DiFrancesco.

IS THAT PERMISSION FOR ME TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AND A WAIVER OF THE PRIVELGE
149. Q. Okay. Let me just understand this more clearly. Maybe I’m not reading the English correctly in this affidavit. “By 2002, I had met Elio and we were in business together.” Do you see that in paragraph 17?
A. I do.
150. Q. So I’m not putting words in your mouth. You swore that that’s true, didn’t you?
A. Yes, I assumed we were in business together, and I’ll just add to that – and since this lawsuit, it is upon reflection there was a lot of trust going on; and, upon reflection, it has occurred to me that I’ve never seen any funds come from Elio or David Miotto or 1530495, so that’s my answer.

ASSUMED WE WERE IN BUSINESS ?? BASED UPON WHAT EXACTLY ?

151. Q. Alright, that’s fine. So funds were never provided for you, on your behalf, at your request, at your instructions, is that what you’re saying?
A. Again, Marcello DiFrancesco is my lawyer who’s working – was my former lawyer. So I’m going to have to decline to answer that – that question. It’s a DiFrancesco-related question.

SO ANY DI FRANCESCO RELATED QUESTIONS HE WILL NOT ANSWER….EVEN IF IT MAEAN S A JUDGE WILL KICK HIM OUT OF A RENTED HOUSE?
152. Q. Okay, so – so Elio didn’t advance $320,000.00. Is that what you’re saying?
A. I believe Mr. Miotto had $320,000.00 advanced but I’m unsure of where the funds came from but they did not come to me. So that’s quite – doesn’t really matter. If you’re talking about – what was the 320 for what you’re suggesting?
153. Q. It’s alright, sir. Now, I’m going to ask you again. Did you ever hear of a company called Prima Verde? I think it’s -
A. Prima Verde is nowhere in my - in my affidavit, sir.
154. R Q. You’ve never heard of that company?
A. It’s not in my – my affidavit, sir.
155. Q. Have you ever heard of that company? This is a cross-examination. I’m entitled to wide latitude. Have you ever heard of that company?
A. I believe, although I do not know, but it’s a Marcello DiFrancesco related incident; therefore, I decline to answer.

I WAS NEVER COUNSEL TO PRIMA VERDE AND I SENT MONEY TO PRIMA VERDE BUT THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF MY INVOLVMENT IN PRIMA VERDE
156. Q. Mm, hmm. I’m suggesting to you, sir, that you or your family incorporated a company called Prima Verde, isn’t that the case?
A. It’s a Marcello DiFrancesco related incident, sir.
157. Q. And when I say “Prima Verde”, it’s – I believe it’s Prima Verde Inc.
MR. REID: Can I just – does Prima Verde have anything to do with 255 Allison’s Point?
158. MR. ZELDIN: It’s got a lot to do with the pool. Your client has got the word “pool” all over this brief affidavit. He’s going to have answer questions about the pool. He’s going to have to answer questions about what’s this business that he’s involved in with Elio because that’s the essence of his defence, if you will, to this application.
MR. REID: Well, what he says in his affidavit is that “I was involved with Elio” -
159. MR. ZELDIN: Counsel, either – you’ve got to -
MR. REID: Well -
160. MR. ZELDIN: I know what he said in his affidavit.
MR. REID: Okay.
161. MR. ZELDIN: He says he’s involved in a business with Elio in a pool.
MR. REID: That’s right, okay.
162. MR. ZELDIN: And I want to know what’s the nature of this involvement, and I’m suggesting to you, sir, that you weren’t in business with Elio and that, in fact, you were running a fraud scheme and you were in the midst of defrauding Elio and ensuring that Elio never would be able to recover against you. And, in fact, you defrauded Elio and his brother who were investing funds in your fraudulent schemes.
THE DEPONENT: Are you asking me? I’ve heard a statement, are you asking -
163. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I put that to the witness.
A. You’re absolutely incorrect.
164. Q. Alright, so tell me about the pool then?
MR. REID: Okay, the objection to the pool, as stated before, is that has more to do with the Toronto action which is not part of this application. It’s provided as background information. How he was involved with Mr. Miotto –
SO IS THE OBJECTION RELATED TO THE TORONTO ACTION ACCORDING TO REID THAT IS WHY HE WONT ANSWER QUESTIONS BUT ACCORDING TO JORDAN HE REFUSES TO ANSWER BECAUSE HE WONT ANSWER ANYTHING WHERE HE THINKS I WILL CHALLENGE HIM OR SHOW HIM WHAT THE TRUTH IS

165. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, that’s not good enough, counsel; and you know it as well, with respect.
MR. REID: Well, let’s consolidate them then.
166. MR. ZELDIN: Well, your client’s had ample opportunity to consolidate them. Your client chose not to defend the claim.
BY MR. ZELDIN:
167. R Q. Did you run a company called IFPA or International Financial Privacy Associations Limited, something like that?
A. I have no comment.
168. Q. You’ve got to answer the question, sir.
A. It’s a Marcello DiFrancesco related answer.

HOW IS THAT A QUESTION RELATED TO ME I AM NOT AND HAVE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH IFPA IT PREDATES MY KNOWLEDGE AND INTRODUCTION TO JORDAN BIONDA AND I WAS HIRED TO RESOLVE A MATTER FOR IFPA AND HAVE NEVER BEEN PAID FOR IT AND IF HE SAYS HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN IFPA AND NEVER RAN IT HOW CAN HE THEN HIDE BEHIND SOLICITOR AND CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND REFUSE TO ANSWER LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS
169. Q. It is not, sir. You ran a comp- a fraudulent scheme called International Financial Privacy Associations Limited.
A. Is that – is that an assumption, speculation?
170. Q. I want an answer to the question.
MR. REID: Does that company have anything to do with your client?
171. MR. ZELDIN: Yeah, it’s the type of occupation that this – that this man’s been involved with in the last seven years, the kind of occupation, the kind of a small business or company that he doesn’t want to tell me about and that he’s been very vague about. So I’m asking you – I’m giving you a chance to correct your answer no the record. Do you know anything about that company?
THE DEPONENT: I decline to answer on the grounds of my rights have been violated as my lawyer Marcello DiFrancesco is now sitting in your camp, as it be, and I’m – I’m - my solicitor/client privilege is being violated.
172. MR. ZELDIN: Off the record.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

173. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, I’m going to show you an e-mail or shall I say a letter which I understand may have been sent by e-mail and it’s Exhibit C to the affidavit of Elio Miotto.
MR. REID: Is this the new one or the old one?
174. MR. ZELDIN: Q. It’s the new one sworn May 9th, 2007. I want you to take a look at Exhibit C. And are you familiar with that letter?
A. Not as I’ve just seen it right now but I notice that it’s sent to Marcello DiFrancesco.
175. Q. And Jeff McCargar?
A. Yeah.
176. Q. Private message for Marcello DiFrancesco and Jeff McCargar, correct? You’ve got to answer with – verbally, sir?
A. I can see it, sir.
177. Q. Okay, I wanted to hear the answer on the record. Was Jeff McCargar your lawyer too?
A. Not that I’m aware of.
DOES JEFF MCCARGAR PRACTICE LAW OF ANY KIND
DOES HE HAVE A LAW DEGREE THAT YOU KNOW OF DID YOU SEEK LEGAL ADVISE FROM JEFF AT ANY TIME DID HE HOLD HIM SLEF OUT AS A LAWYER TO YOU OR TO ANYONE ELSE WHAT DID JEFF DO FOR YOU

178. Q. Now, it indicates around the middle of the first page “Regarding X and our 1.5M participation”. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
179. R Q. What’s this letter about? Is this about the pool?
A. I have no comment as it’s a letter obviously sent to me in confidence to my lawyer; and, therefore, my – once again my rights have been violated.
180. Q. No, I’m suggesting to you that it wasn’t sent to you, it was sent by you?
A. Yes, it was sent in confidence to my lawyer, Marcello DiFrancesco.
181. Q. But Jeff McCargar isn’t your lawyer?
A. Yes, but he’s – we have full-bound confidentiality agreements. It’s a confidential document. It was sent to my lawyer and, therefore –

WHERE ARE THESE FULL BOUND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS…ARE THEY SIGNED BY THESE PEOPLE WHO YOU SAY ARE TO HOLD INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL AND TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY INVESTIGATION CIVIL OR CRIMINAL IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING


182. Q. So you’re not going to answer any questions about this, is that what you’re saying?
A. I cannot answer anything that -
183. Q. I’m sugg-
A. - where my rights have been violated, sir.
184. R Q. Okay, I’m going to suggest to you, sir, that this letter is part of your scam. This is a letter that you sent to suggest to people that they’re going to – that they’re making money on monies that they forwarded to your control. Isn’t that the case?
A. I’ve already answered on this document.
185. Q. Okay, so you won’t answer about that, will you? Is there anything in this letter that’s true?
A. I’ve already answered regarding this – this letter.
186. Q. No, you haven’t. You haven’t answered, sir.
187. MR. ZELDIN: Is your client going to stonewall the rest of the examination, Mr. Reid?
MR. REID: Well, I don’t know what the rest of your questions are but apparently he’s not going to answer any questions where he feels you obtained information from –


HE WONT ANSWER QUESTIONS WHERE HE FEELS THAT YOU OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM MARCELLO…… NOT WHERE HE KNOWS BUT WHERE HE FEELS…..WHAT IS THAT
188. MR. ZELDIN: He’s barely answered any -
MR. REID: - from Marcello.
189. MR. ZELDIN: - any question with a straight answer, with respect.
THE DEPONENT: Is that an assumption again?
190. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I’m suggesting to you, sir, that you are in control of the money that Elio Miotto and David Miotto invested, are you not?
A. I am not.
191. Q. Okay, were you at – at any time?
A. No.
192. Q. Well, where did the money go?
A. Marcello DiFrancesco was in control of all of the Miotto’s money.
IF HE NEVER GOT ANY MONEY FORM MIOTTO HOW WOULD HE KNOW WHAT AND HOW MUCH MONEY I WAS IN CONTROL OF

193. Q. Okay.
A. And so maybe you should check with him as he’s working with you.
IS THAT PERMISSION AND A WAIVER TO ASK ME

194. R Q. Did you not instruct Marcello DiFrancesco to send these monies to bank accounts or banks designated by you?
A. I will not answer any questions regarding Marcello DiFrancesco who was my lawyer. Now he’s disbarred and he’s now working against me with the Miottos. My rights have been violated.
WHAT RIGHTS IN PARTICULAR HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND HOW AND WHEN
195. Q. I’m going to refer you, sir, to Exhibit J of Mr. Miotto’s affidavit of May 9th, 2007. Did you write that letter?
A. I notice that the letter is made out to Marcello DiFrancesco who was my former lawyer.
196. R Q. Yes.
A. Who is now working against me in your camp so I will not be answering anything that has Marcello DiFrancesco’s handprints all over –

THE LETTER DOES NOT HAVE MY HAND PRINTS ANYWHERE ON IT IT WAS SENT TO ME AS A LIAISON FOR ELIO DAVID AND THE REST OF THE GROUP WHO INVESTED IN THE POOL THE HANDPRINTS ARE HIS OWN AND HE IS TELLING ME AND THE REST OF THE GROUP BECAUSE HE WAS UPDATING EVERYONE AND HE IS TOO LAZY TO WRITE AND DEAL WITH PEOPLE SO HE PICKS A PEOPLE WHO RELAY INFORMATION SO HE CAN SHIELD HIMSELF FORM QUESTIONS AND CRITISISM
197. Q. Okay, what about your letter of May 16th, 2005 which is attached?
MR. REID: Perhaps I can just shorten this matter. Mr. Bionda is not going to answer anymore questions that have to do with the subject matter of the Toronto action which is the pool. He mentioned pool in his affidavit because a little bit of background – his affidavit also goes on to indicate that Elio Miotto and himself came to a new agreement which involved a trip to Panama and new obligations on both of them, one of which was to pay rent.

JORDAN SAYS HE WONT ANSWER BECAUSE OF PRIVILEGE AND REID SAYS BECAUSE OF THE TORONTO ACTION WHICH ONE IS IT

198. MR. ZELDIN: Mm, hmm.
MR. REID: And that’s the subject matter of this dispute and we haven’t yet touched on the rent for 255 Allison’s Point.
199. MR. ZELDIN: That’s right, counsel, because it’s our position that the entire scheme and any agreements were essentially all part of fraudulent transactions and schemes run by Mr. Bionda; and I’m entitled to get at the truth the way we see fit. And if your client talks about a pool and the relationship of the pool, and any other transactions to - to the rental situation, I’m entitled to ask the questions in the manner I see fit.
MR. REID: He’s not going to answer -
200. MR. ZELDIN: And to lay the foundation for questioning regarding the rent.
MR. REID: Well, he’s not going to answer any more -
201. MR. ZELDIN: And in my respectful submission, your client is just attempting to stonewall this, for lack of a better word.
MR. REID: Well, there is an agreement attached to his affidavit that -
202. MR. ZELDIN: So -
MR. REID: - sets out a new comprehensive agreement between him and Mr. Miotto which amends the obligations from the pool. And he’ll start answering questions –

THE POOL WAS IN BREACH OF ITS OBLIGATIONS AS SOON AS IT STARTED AND WE WERE NEVER ADVISED WHERE THE MONEY WAS THE NEW AGREEMENTS WERE SIGNED UNDER DURESS AND COERCION AND ARE VOID PURSUANT TO THE UNCONSIOUNABLE MANNER IN WHICH THE SIGNATURES WERE EXTRACTED AND THE MISREPRESENTATIONS SURRONFDING THEM ELIO WAS TOLD THAT THE DEAL FOR THE POOL WAS GOING TO PAY OUT AND THAT ELIO AGREED THAT IF IT DID PAY OUT HE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM IN COMMITTING 1.5 MILLION TO THE BUILDING OF A HOME IN OCEAN CLUB AND THAT THEY WOULD THEN SHARE IN THE PROFITS WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD ELIO NEVER HAD INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE AND IN FACT JORDAN PROHIBITED HIM FROM SPEAKING TO ME ABOUT IT AT ALL ELIO WAS TO GET 8.8 MILLION FROM THE POOL SO 1.5 MILLION WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EASY INVESTMETN TO MAKE
203. MR. ZELDIN: Well, the background is – is completely – and I will say the background is completely relevant, as you know. So, with respect –
BY MR. ZELDIN:
204. Q. Sir, wasn’t 1411187 Ontario Inc. essentially transferred to the Miottos?
A. Not with my permission.

JORDAN HAS EMAILS TELLING ME TO TRANSFER THE MORTGAGE TO ELIO THAT WAS ON HIS BROTHERS HOUSE

205. Q. Oh, I see.
A. Ever with my permission – it was – I found out in 2006 that it was illegally done. I still, to this day, do not know who did it and I’m assuming it should have been Gabriella Pierantoni as she was the trustee on record and yet she’s never signed off, never communicated with me; and somehow through there, she appointed - as I’ve seen in various things - Marcello DiFrancesco. I see his name. I see Elio Miotto’s name, but I’ve never given permission and they essentially stole the company from myself.

HE PLEDGED ALL OF THE ASSETS THAT HE HAD TO SECURE THE MONEY BEING GIVEN TO HIM AND HE PROVIDED ME ELIO DAVID AND JEFF WITH THE SECURITY AND HAS AS RECENTLY AS FEB 2007 CORRESPONDED WITH OTHERS IN THE POOL TELLING THEM THAT THEY ARE SECURED AND THAT THERE ARE ASSETS WHICH SECURE THEIR INVESTMENT UP TO 60% AND THESE PEOPLE WERE NEVER EVER TOLD THAT THEY HAD SECURITY……..
206. Q. That’s your evidence?
A. My evidence? That’s my statement, sir. Evidence will be the trustee agreement and the lack of –
207. Q. Okay.
A. and the lack of evidence -
208. Q. So you’re -
A. - that DiFrancesco -
209. Q. So the documents -
A. I’m finishing -
210. Q. - that you’ve produced -
A. - answering the question, sir.
211. Q. The documents -
A. I’m finishing answer the questions.
212. Q. Okay, well go ahead.
A. And my evid-
213. Q. But try not to take long gaps between.
A. My evidence will be the trustee agreement and the declaration of trust I have from Gabriella Pierantoni – Pierantoni, who is Marcello DiFrancesco’s wife, who was the trustee, and the lack of evidence or any written submission of me giving her instructions to do anything with the company; and, therefore, it was stolen from me by apparently Mr. Elio Miotto and Mr. Marcello DiFrancesco.
214. Q. Wasn’t that part of the security, sir, that you were supposed to give and you, in fact, agreed to give -
A. No.
215. Q. - by virtue of the large investment the Miottos were making?
A. Absolutely not.
216. Q. Okay, so you deny that? You’ve got to give an answer on the record – I’m waiting.
A. Was that a question?
217. Q. You deny that -
A. Yes, I -
218. Q. - that was the case?
A. I said absolutely not. I thought that might have been clear.
219. Q. So you’re saying that because of that trust agreement, that you’re really the owner of that 141187 company?
A. I was the owner. I am the owner since I’ve never signed off on it -
220. Q. You never signed off on it?
A. - until – excuse me, I’ll finish the question, or finish the answer, until a series of agreements starting on February 8th and completed on April 22nd were made – new agreements were made and -
221. Q. So why do you say that you – that it was stolen from you?
A. Because it was – the trustee – the – excuse me, just one minute, I need the right words – the directors and such were changed in 2002 and 2003 long before the agreements of 2006 were done.
222. Q. I’m suggesting to you, sir, that everything was done with your knowledge and consent.
A. Well, then you’re suggesting a wrong conclusion.
223. Q. So, eventually you’re saying that that trust agreement came to an end, is that what you’re saying?
A. I’m not saying anything. I’m saying -
224. Q. Well, I want to know. You’re saying that at a certain point you signed off.
A. If I signed off, it was due to other agreements that your side is claiming are not relevant anymore, so you tell me.
225. Q. Okay, but you don’t have a copy of that?
A. I don’t have a copy of what?
226. Q. Of – of a document by which you ended, terminated, signed off the trust agreement?
A. I don’t have any copies with me, sir.
227. Q. You don’t have any?
A. No.
228. Q. So how do you know you signed off?
A. I’m not sure – how do I know if I signed off? I made an agreement sometime between February 8th, 2006 and April 22nd, 2002 with Marcello DiFrancesco.
229. Q. Your former lawyer?
A. My former lawyer, exactly, and has all the information; and David Miotto, who’s sitting beside you, and Elio Miotto, who’s not here, and those agreements have been not lived up to by your client.

HE NEVER LIVED UP TO ONE THING EVER IN THE POOL OR THE AGREEMENTS HE WAS TO PAY RENT AND HE HAS NEVER PAID RENT HE WAS TO MEET WITH ELIO AND PROVIDE HIM WITH THE NEW RENT AGREEMENT ON THE 23 OR 24TH OF APRIL 2006 BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENDED EITHER
230. R Q. When you reported matters to Marcello DiFrancesco regarding the pool, you did so in order that he would provide that information to the Miottos, did you not?
MR. REID: We’re not going to answer any more questions about the pool.
THE DEPONENT: I’ve made it clear, anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, I will not be -
231. MR. ZELDIN: Q. You didn’t have a problem talking about the releases.
A. That was more -
232. Q. You didn’t have a problem talking about the -
MR. REID: The releases had to do with -
233. MR. ZELDIN: Q. – the so-called trust agreement.
A. We needed to enter Gabriella Pierantoni into this matter. She is Marcello DiFrancesco’s common-law wife and she is, obviously, a party to your client’s scheme to defraud me of certain assets I used to have.
234. Q. Oh, really, so you had certain assets. Which assets are they?
A. I’m talking about one – I’m reading a document here, sorry – 1411187 Ontario Inc.
235. Q. That’s a company.
A. It’s an Ontario incorporated -
236. Q. Mm, hmm.
A. It’s a Corporation incorporated in Ontario which somehow has now found its way into the Miottos -
237. Q. Okay, now -
A. - Elio Miotto’s -
238. Q. Now, if I’m correct -
A. - possession without -
239. Q. If -
A. - me signing off on it.
240. R Q. If I’m correct, that company has, in the – had a mortgage on, was it your brother’s property?
A. Yes, but Marcello DiFrancesco would have been involved in – in applying any such mortgages at the time; and since he is working with you now, sir, I decline to talk about anything -
241. Q. Oh, I see -
A. - to do with Marcello DiFrancesco.
242. R Q. - so you won’t talk about that, okay. So that was a company that held a mortgage on – on which one of your brother’s farms or properties?
MR. REID: Can we just go off the record for a second?
THE DEPONENT: Anything to -
243. MR. ZELDIN: Well let him finish the answer. He was in the middle of answering.
THE DEPONENT: If it has to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, which it does, maybe you should check with him.


PERMISSION TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? OR A WAIVER OF THE PRIVILEGE ??
244. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, now we can go off the record.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

MR. REID: Firstly we’re getting –
MR. MIOTTO: Whatever the case may be, about the pool.
245. MR. ZELDIN: Okay.
MR. MIOTTO: You’re the one who talks about it.
246. MR. ZELDIN: Let’s go back on the record. Okay -
MR. MIOTTO: The pool.
MR. ZELDIN: Just – shsh- shsh – off the record for a sec.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

247. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, we’re back on the record, sir. You were in court, I believe, was it April 30th on the first return of this residential tendencies application?
A. I was.
248. Q. Okay. And your lawyer was there at the time during the proceeding that day?
A. Yes, yes.
249. Q. Okay, so perhaps your lawyer will be able to answer some of these questions. On that day, counsel, you indicated to Justice Wood that you’d like to consolidate the present landlord and tenant application with -
MR. REID: That was my recommendation to my client, that he should make a motion to do that and he should also make a motion to set aside his noting in default.
250. MR. ZELDIN: Okay.
MR. REID: And I’ve actually assisted his common-law spouse -
251. MR. ZELDIN: No, no. No, counsel, respectfully, I asked you a question. Did you advise Mr. Justice Wood that you would like to consolidate?
MR. REID: I indicated that was my recommendation to my client that he should do that.
252. MR. ZELDIN: Okay.
MR. REID: I haven’t yet received those instructions.
253. MR. ZELDIN: And I advised the - I advised the court that your client had already been noted in default and that there was a pending motion for judgement.
MR. REID: That’s right.
254. MR. ZELDIN: And to date, has your client instructed you to bring a motion?
MR. REID: He knows that his common-law spouse has one scheduled for July 26th in Toronto. So he does have some time to – to think about it. He hasn’t yet given me those instructions to do the motion material.
255. MR. ZELDIN: Okay. So date, you haven’t commenced preparing motion materials on behalf of Mr. Bionda?
MR. REID: No.
256. MR. ZELDIN: You assisted his common-law wife, Marcia Mackesy in preparing materials for the set aside motion and you served them the other day in court, I believe it was earlier this week?
MR. REID: That’s correct, in Barrie on Tuesday, wasn’t it? May – May 8th.
257. MR. ZELDIN: May -
THE DEPONENT: 8th.
258. MR. ZELDIN: May 8th.
MR. REID: Ms. Mackesy also asked for my assistance in finding a lawyer for her and, in fact, I have spoken to a lawyer who may or may not speak to her.
259. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, off the record.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

260. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Sir, for any of the businesses you’ve operated in the past, did you ever keep a set of books?
A. Um – yes.
261. Q. Did you have to think about that?
A. Yes.
262. Q. Well, isn’t it your practice to keep a set of books in the normal course?
A. When it applies, yes.
263. Q. Well, when wouldn’t it apply?
A. I guess it depends on the business. Some businesses, if you – the laws change but if you make – if it’s just a sidewalk business or a very small business where GST and things don’t apply, then you don’t have to worry about it.

IS HE SAYING THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS YOU DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PAYING TAXES AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT THOSE TYPES OF BUSINESSES ARE IMMUNE AND EXEMPT FROM THE LAW
264. Q. But you’re not into the small stuff, this sidewalk stuff. You’re a successful person, aren’t you?
A. On the contrary, sir. Small stuff is – is relevant business. Just give you a small example – I’ve bought and sold golf balls and it’s a very profitable business. You should know – I know, you might want to check out, just as an example, how large golf is in the world. When you can buy balls at a low price and resell them, it’s a very – it’s a very good business.
265. Q. Really?
A. Yes.
266. Q. Golf balls, eh?
A. Golf balls, absolutely.
267. R Q. Okay, and what about acquiring lots in the Bahamas?
A. Marcello DiFrancesco was my -
268. Q. Oh, I see.
A. - lawyer with you – who now works with you, sir, and I have no comments on anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco.
269. Q. Okay, what does a lot in the Bahamas have to do with the Marcello DiFrancesco?
A. Any business I may or may not have been involved in in the Bahamas would have been with Marcello DiFrancesco so –

I AM NOT AN D WAS NEVER A PRACTICING LAWYER IN THE BAHAMAS
270. Q. Any business you may or may not have been involved in?
A. Yes, absolutely.
271. Q. Okay. So you may or may not have been involved in – in a business in the Bahamas, is that the case?
A. All my business in the Bahamas was with Marcello DiFrancesco so, therefore, I decline to answer anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco.

I DID NOT REPRESENT BIONDA IN THE BAHAMAS AT ALL HE AND I NEVER ONCE MET IN THE BAHAMAS TO DO ANY BUSINESS EXCEPT FOR INSTRUCTIONS I RECEIVED TO TALK TO THE POLICE IN THE BAHAMANS WHO WERE INVESTIGATING HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE IFPA
272. Q. So, if I’m going to ask you questions about the so-called first charge on a valuable property on Paradise Island in the Bahamas for 1. – 1.11 – sorry, 1.1 million – forgive me, madam reporter – you’d say that that has something to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, is that true?
A. That – to my knowledge but you can ask me any question you like, sir. You didn’t ask me a question about that. You said “if you were about to” -
273. Q. Well, I’m going to ask – I did ask you and you refused to answer -
A. You have not asked me about that.
274. Q. Did you acquire a lot on Paradise Island in the Bahamas for 1.1 million?
A. I believe anything to do in the Bahamas has to do with Marcello DiFrancesco.
275. R Q. Why did you mention that lot in paragraph 27 of your affidavit?
A. At the – I’m not sure why I mentioned it, sir, but it has to do with Marcello DiFrancesco so, therefore, at this particular time, the line of questioning, Mr. DiFrancesco is working against me so I refuse to answer.

WILL YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION IF MDF STOPS WORKING AGAINST YOU OR IT APPEARS THAT HE STOPS WORKING AGAINST YOU AND HOW WOULD HE KNOW WHAT I AM OR AM NOT DOING
276. Q. So, in fact, sir, most of the information in your affidavit in some way pertains to something that was done with Marcello DiFrancesco. Is that what you’re telling me?
A. Yes, a number of years ago, Mr. DiFrancesco and right up until the time he was disbarred in November, 2005, was my attorney -
277. Q. So -
A. - therefore – and now that he’s working with your legal team for the Miottos, with the Miottos, with Wise Corporation, I’m really not sure because you refuse to identify how he’s working with you when I asked you on April 30th at the Bracebridge Court House; therefore, I will not answer nay questions that have to do with DiFrancesco.

HE REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT HE THINKS DEAL WITH ISSUES THAT I KNOW ABOUT BECAUSE HE THINKS I AM WORKING WITH YOU AND MIOTTO BUT HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW I FIGURE IN THIS EQUATION AND IN FACT HE ADMITS HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW I FIT IN THE EQUATION
278. Q. So you’re telling me, sir, that perhaps it was a mistake on your part to even file this affidavit?
A. No, I’m not tell you that at all, sir.
279. Q. So what you’re saying then is that you’ll say what you want to say, exactly the way you want to say it, but nobody can ask you questions about anything in this affidavit because it all has to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, according to you?
A. If that – you’re saying that, sir. I’m not saying that.
280. Q. Yes, you are. You haven’t answered any questions. You won’t answer questions about 141187 Ontario. You won’t answer questions about the lot in the Bahamas.
A. I’ve been defrauded by your clients with the cooperation of Marcello DiFrancesco and, therefore, I look forward to a court case about it, sir.

IF HE ACCUSES ME OF BEING A PARTY OT A FRAUD I HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE SCC HAS A NUMBER OF DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD THAT THE LAWYER MAY DEFEND HIMSELF WHERE A CLIENT HAS ACCUSED HIM OF FRAUDULENT BEHAVIOUR AND THAT HE ONLY HAS TO REVEAL ENOUGH INFORAMTION TO REPEL AWAY THE ACCUSATION AND NOT MORE
281. Q. Okay, are you telling me Marcello DiFrancesco was – was running International Financial Privacy Association Limited?
A. I’m not telling you anything, sir.
282. Q. Are you telling me that Marcello DiFrancesco was running International Financial Privacy Association Limited, yes or no?
A. No.
283. Q. So why don’t you talk about International Financial Privacy Association Limited? You refused to answer questions about that earlier.
A. I know that Marcello DiFrancesco either worked for or with that company and, therefore, he’s also my lawyer, or he was my lawyer at the time, therefore, I refuse to answer anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco.

HOW DOES HE KNOW I WORKED FOR IFPA AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF EGGS IN ALASKA
284. Q. International Financial Privacy Association Limited was a scam operation, was it not?
A. Not to my recollection, sir.
285. Q. Okay, well the Saskatchewan Securities Division, Financial Services Commission, certainly thought so, did they not?
A. I really don’t know, sir. Maybe – if you have information you’d like to provide to me, then that’s up to you.
286. Q. Well, I would suggest you review Exhibit P and Q.
A. It appears that in July 28th, 2000, which was seven years ago -
287. Q. No, I’m just asking you to review it. I’m not asking you to make a speech.
A. I’m reviewing it and it has nothing to do with me.
288. Q. It’s got nothing to do with you?
A. No.
289. Q. So, a company that you operated and took money for has got nothing to do with you, is that what you’re saying?
A. You’re incorrect with your assumption, sir.
290. Q. I suggest to you I’m not incorrect with the assumptions.
A. I suggest to you you are.
291. Q. So why – why were you sending e-mails to Marcello DiFrancesco?
A. Well Marcello DiFrancesco was my lawyer for a number of years, I think maybe I’m allowed to send e-mails to him.
292. Q. Regarding IFPA, correct?
A. I have no idea. I’ve sent -
293. Q. So you’re not a principal of IFPA?
A. I am not.
294. Q. You never were a principal of IFPA?
A. I decline to answer based on Marcello DiFrancesco was my lawyer and he’s -
295. R Q. So you’re not a principal now but you may have been before? You may or you may not have been, is that what you’re saying?
A. I decline to answer, sir.
296. Q. No, you’re declining to answer. I’m going to suggest to you you’re going to have to answer.
A. When will I have to answer, sir?
297. Q. Either at this examination or when a judge orders you to.
A. I – I respect the courts and I would respect any judge’s order, sir.
298. Q. I’m suggesting to you, sir, that you ran a scam operation where you told fanciful stories about mysterious international bankers and banking transactions, isn’t that the case?
A. What is the question?
299. Q. You heard the question and we’ll have madam reporter read it over to you or you can listen to the tape.
A. I heard a suggestion.
300. Q. You heard the question. Let’s read it over – let’s hear it – let’s go off the record for a moment so you can hear the question.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

REPORTER’S NOTE: Reporter played back portion of examination from question 291 to this point.

301. MR. ZELDIN: Q. You heard the question.
A. And it’s incorrect.
302. Q. Okay, what part of it is incorrect?
A. I did not run – I - whatever you called a scam operation.
303. R Q. Did you ever talk to Elio Miotto or David Miotto about an investment pool?
A. Marcello DiFrancesco is my lawyer and anything to do with the Miottos have to do with Marcello DiFrancesco, therefore, I decline to answer.

HE WAS AWARE I ACTED FOR ELIO AND DAVID AN HE WAS AWARE AT ALL TIMES THAT I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP INFORMATION FROM ONE PERSON OR ANOTHER AND THAT IF A CONFLICT AROSE I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACT AND THAT I WOULD BECOME A WITNESS
MR. REID: Can I just save us – our position was that he’s not going to answer any more questions concerning the pool which is the subject of a Toronto action. If you wish to have a motion - bring a motion on the point, you may use that but why don’t we move on to the 255 Allison’s Point which is the subject of this application.
304. MR. ZELDIN: Counsel, I’ll get to 255 Allison’s Road. I will conduct this examination as I see fit.
MR. REID: Well, it’s pretty clear he’s not going to answer those questions, so we’re wasting our time.
305. MR. ZELDIN: Oh, no, we’re not.
BY MR. ZELDIN:
306. Q. I want to know what part is not correct of the question that you just said – you gave an answer to the question posed and you said it’s not correct. What part is not correct?
A. All of it.
307. R Q. Did you ever speak to the Miottos regarding an investment scheme?
A. Any speaking with the Miottos – Miottos, sir, is – would have been done through Marcello DiFrancesco who was my lawyer who is now working with the Miottos against myself and I decline to answer anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco as my rights have been violated.
308. Q. So are you suggesting, sir, then that you’ve never spoken to David Miotto or Elio Miotto directly?
A. Directly to the two of them, I’ve spoken to them, yes, definitely.
309. Q. Alright, did you go to Switzerland with Elio Miotto?
A. I did.
310. Q. And he paid for your trip, didn’t he?
A. He offered to pay for my trip and he did, as agreed.
311. Q. Okay.
A. He begged to pay for my trip so he could go.

ELIO BEGGED HIM TO GO TO SWITZERLAND TO MEET THE BANKERS WHO WERE LATE IN THE DELIVERY OF MONEY AND WHO WERE NOT DOING WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO NOT TO PAY FOR HIS TRIP
312. Q. Oh, he begged, did he?
A. Yes, he did.
313. Q. That’s rich.
MR. REID: Please don’t make comments -
314. MR. ZELDIN: I withdraw that comment.
BY MR. ZELDIN:
315. R Q. So what did you discuss when you went on the trip with Elio Miotto?
A. It’s all information pertaining to Marcello DiFrancesco, so I decline to answer.

I WAS NOT IN SWITZERLAND NOR WAS I INVITED TO SWITZERLAND AND I WAS TOLD ABOUT THE MEETING AFTER THE TWO OF THEM GOT BACK AND WAS TOLD THAT PROFITS WERE MADE AND WE DISCUSSED HOW TO DIVIDE UP THE PROFITS WHICH WERE COMING ‘SHORTLY’
316. R Q. And did you give information to Elio in Switzerland suggesting that you had spoken to mysterious international banking figures and that the pool would eventually pay off money?

IT INCLUDES ME BECAUSE I WAS A INVESTOR IN THE POOL NOT THE LAWYER FOR THE POOL I DID NOT HAVE INFORMATION FROM THE BANKERS IN SWITZERLAND OR ANY BODY EXCEPT JORDAN AND I NEVER DEALT WITH OR MET X ELIO WAS TOLD THAT THE POOL MADE 8.8 MILLION IN PROFIT AND THAT IT WOULD BE DIVIDED UP SOON AND WHAT MY QUESTION IS…….IS IF THE POOL HAD MADE 15 MILLION IN ONE YEAR IN DEC 2001 HOW AFTER 5 YEARS DOES IT NOW ONLY HAVE 8.8 MILLION EVEN IF THEY HAD ACCUMULATED INTEREST AT 5 % PER YEAR IT WOULD BE IN THE ORDER OF 20,000,000.00

A. I decline to answer based on that’s material that includes Marcello DiFrancesco, my former attorney who is now disbarred and working against me with your team.
317. Q. So anything that Marcello DiFrancesco may have touched, you’re going to decline to answer?
A. It depends on the question, sir.
318. Q. Oh, so you’re going to pick and choose, is that the case?
A. No, I just have to make sure that it’s an appropriate line of questioning.
319. Q. Who did the transaction work and the conveyancing on 255 Allison’s?
A. I have no idea.
320. Q. You don’t, eh?
A. No.
321. Q. How did the property get into the applicant’s name?
A. Who are we talking about?
322. Q. The applicant is 1530495 Ontario Inc., if you don’t know who did the conveyancing.
A. I don’t know what conveyance means, sir. So if you want to explain it.
323. Q. I think you know full-well?
A. No, I don’t, sorry.
324. Q. Who did the property transfer?
A. On – I’m going to assume the property – I don’t – I don’t know. How would I know who did the property transfer?
325. Q. It was your brother’s house, was it not, at least in name?
A. Which property are we talking about?
326. Q. 255 Allison’s Point?
A. No.
327. Q. Oh, sorry, it was your brother-in-law’s and your sister’s house, correct?
A. That’s correct.
328. Q. So you know who owned it. You know who owned it full-well. So why – And in fact, you discussed it at some length in your affidavit. Is that not the case?
A. Do I know who owned the house? I would say that’s correct. I just – I didn’t hear the question. I heard the question but I didn’t realize it was a question. Prior to -
329. Q. Why are you taking so long to answer?
A. Well, I’m listening to your – your –
330. Q. I -
A. You’re poor line of questioning, sir.
331. Q. Well, I know, in other words you’re trying to think up an answer.
A. Is it not my right to listen to a – to think before I answer?
332. Q. No, I’m just wondering -
A. Or would you - would you prefer I did not?
333. Q. I would prefer that you provide truthful answers, that’s all.
A. Then you give me the time to answer.
MR. REID: Just for the record, there’s not long delays after every question.
334. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I – it indicates in paragraph nine that you wanted to loan your sister funds to construct a new home.
A. I’m reading it, yes.
335. Q. And Marcello suggested you set up a corporation?
A. That’s correct.
HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT OWNING ANYTHING AT THE TIME BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE ACCUSING HIM OF STEALING THEIR MONEY WITH IFPA AND SO I SUGGESTED TO BE SAFE THE CORPORATION BE FORMED

336. Q. And he set up 1411187 Ontario Inc.?
A. That’s correct.
337. Q. Now, how did the house at 255 Allison’s get into the name of that company?
A. It didn’t get into the name of that company, sir.
338. Q. Okay, so you’re telling me it wasn’t transferred into – into that company’s name?
A. Into 141187?
339. Q. The applicant.
A. Oh, into 1530495. It got into that company – I’m not sure how it got into the company but that was a company set up initially for Elio Miotto as he was holding it in trust for me on a pre-arranged agreement.

HE HAD A TRUST AGREEMENT AT FIRST FOR 1411187 ONTARIO INC. BECAUSE WE WERE NOT IN A DEAL AND THEN LATER WE GOT IN A DEAL THE COMPANY WAS STILL HIS BECAUSE ALL OF THE MONEY WE WERE TOLD WOULD NEVER HAVE TO MOVE AND TAT IT COULD AND WOULD STAY IN MDF TRUST ACCOUNT….LATER THAT CHANGED AND WE INSISTED THAT THE SECURITY BE GIVEN AND IT WAS….IF HE HAD A TRUST AGREEMENT FOR 1411187 ONTARIO INC. WHY DID HE NOT HAVE ONE FOR 1530497 BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR HIM WHERE IS THE PRE ARRANGED AGREEMENT
340. Q. What was he holding in trust for you?
A. He was holding the house in trust for me and the shares of the company, 1530495.
341. Q. Okay, so you’re saying that that – that he was holding it in trust for you?
A. I am saying that, yes.
342. Q. Why in the world would Mr. Miotto hold the property in trust for you?
A. He’d held it because he indicated he would hold it for – for myself if I was able to repay him the money that he suggested that he put into the property.

IF HE ONLY GAVE 320 THEN WHY NOT JUST KEEP THE PROPEORTY IN JORDANS NAME AND TAKE BACK A MORTGAGE…..HE WAS HIDING ASSETS
343. Q. Well, how much did he put into the property?
A. I didn’t see it but I believe a figure – I’ve never seen any financial information, sir, but I’m - the figure that’s been used is $320,000.00; but my former attorney has never shown me anything.
344. Q. Okay, now so asfaras you’re concerned that the house at 255 Allison’s is yours? Is that what you’re trying to tell us?
A. I’m trying to tell you that I’ve had the opportunity in a pre-described agreement with Mr. – that I could re-buy it from Mr. Miotto, the shares of the company, at any time for $320,000.00 which was the amount of money he put into the company, is what the figure that has been used.
345. Q. And you’re – and are you supposed to be able to live there rent-free?
A. Yes.
346. Q. So you’re supposed to live there rent-free. You don’t have any obligation to pay rent, is that what you’re saying?
A. I didn’t have any obligation until -
347. Q. No, I’m asking you right now. You don’t recognize an obligation to pay rent?
A. No, not now due to the breaking of the agreement of Mr. Miotto back in April of 2006. There were two agreements. The first agreement, I pay rent. The second agreement, he invest 1.5 million dollars. He has not done so, in a matter outside of Canada.
348. Q. And that’s a lot in the Bahamas, is that what you’re saying, that you don’t want to talk about?
A. It’s – you’re – it’s not what you’re saying. It’s not -
349. Q. The matter outside Canada?
A. No, the matter is in Panama.
350. Q. The company that holds the lot is a Panamanian corporation, as I understand, correct?
A. That’s my understanding, yes.
351. Q. Okay, but the lot itself which is the asset of the corporation, is in the Bahamas, correct?
A. That’s correct.
352. Q. And how was that corporation purchased?
A. Now, you -
353. Q. How was that asset purchased, that lot?
A. Marcello DiFrancesco was involved in the purchasing of that lot.
354. R Q. Did you instruct Marcello DiFrancesco to purchase that lot?
A. I cannot speak about anything to do with Marcello DiFrancesco as he is my former lawyer who is now working with your – your - with the Miottos team, if you will. I should also state that pursuant to numerous confidentiality agreements between the Miottos and myself and DiFrancesco and various lawyers, anybody speaking about that is in violation.

WHERE ARE THESE AGREEMENTS BECAUSE I DON’T HAVE ONE AND NEITHER DO ELIO DAVID JEFF OR ANYONE I KNOW…WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT AND IF THERE IS A VIOLATION WHAT HAPPENS??
355. Q. So you believe you’re supposed to live rent-free in that house at 255 Allison’s, is that correct?
A. It’s a two-sided question, sir. If the Miottos had have lived up to their agreement, no, but they did not.

THE AGREEMENT WAS ELIO AND DAVID WERE GOING TO GET PAID 8.8 MILLION AND THEN THEY WOULD INVEST 1.5 IN BUILDING A HOME BECAUSE JORDAN WAS AWARE THAT ELIO HAD BUILT A HOME FOR HIMSELF AND WAS IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS
356. Q. Okay, where in the agreement does it say that – in that agreement that you keep talking about with the Miottos to pay 1.5 million dollars, does it – does it say that your rent doesn’t have to be paid?
A. I don’t – I don’t think it’s specific but I don’t have a rental agreement on the house there.
357. Q. So you’re saying that there is no -
A. I’m saying it was a trade-off, sir.
358. Q. Okay, you’re making the trade-off but there was nothing in the agreement that said that until – if they don’t provide those monies, that you don’t have to pay rent at 255 Allison’s, is that the case?
A. It’s a – it’s a verbal agreement with Mr. Miotto and myself.

LOTS OF VERBAL AGREEMENTS WERE MADE BY JORDAN ABOUT A LOT OF STUFF AND A LOT OF MONEY BUT NOT ONE HAS COME TO BARE FRIUT
359. Q. Now, you’re saying it’s verbal. Mr. Miotto doesn’t say so.
A. And Mr. Miotto’s lying.
360. Q. I’m suggesting to you, sir, that there is nothing in the agreement that you’ve proffered that says you don’t have to pay rent at 255 Allison’s.
A. Which agreement are you talking about? Could you -
361. Q. You know full-well.
A. Will you identify it by the top of its page, please?
362. Q. Let’s turn to your affidavit. In case you don’t know which agreement we’re talking about, the agreement that you say obligates Elio Miotto -
A. Okay, I have the document in front of me.
363. Q. - to pay money – oh, so you know what document we’re talking about?
A. Yes, my lawyer just opened the page to me, sir, as you saw. Yes, this document clearly indicates that Mr. Miotto is to provide $75,000.00 a month in financing for a specific corporation which he did not; and the verbal agreement I had with Mr. Miotto regarding the rent for 255 Allison Point Road, that should have started on May 1st, was then not due as –

JORDAN WAS TO PAY MDF 175K USD X 3 BUT HE HAS NOT DONE SO EITHER
364. Q. Okay, so what -
A. As agreed by myself.
365. Q. Let’s look at this agreement on February 9th, 2006. In what capacity did you make this agreement?
A. In what – can you explain “what capacity”?
366. Q. Let your lawyer explain that to you.
A. What’s capacity?
MR. REID: Your authority or what role did you play?
THE DEPONENT: I was Power of Attorney to the Corporation.
367. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Where is the Power of Attorney?
A. Pardon me?
368. Q. Where is the Power of Attorney?
A. Well I don’t have any documents with me. The Power of Attorney is registered in Panama. This is a Panama corporation, sir.

HOW DID HE GET THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IT WAS MDF FOR THE FIRST 3 YEARS WHICH WAS COINCIDENTALLY THE SAME TIME FRAME THAT THE DEAL WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY OUT WHO MADE THE DECISION TO REMOVE MDF AS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AND NOMINATE JB
369. Q. No, I’m asking you, what gave you the authority to make an agreement? Are you a shareholder of that company?
A. I’m the Power of Attorney. I’ve already answered your question.
370. Q. When did the company grant you a Power of Attorney?
A. I’m unfamiliar – I’m unknown of that at the moment.
371. Q. Okay, where are the books and records of this company?
A. They would be in Panama.

THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE COMPANY WERE PROVIFDED TO JB IN ACCORDANCE WITH JB’S REQUEST OF MR FRAGO THE LAST TIME JORDAN WAS IN PANAMA WITH ELIO MIOTTO MORE THAN ONE YEAR AGO
372. Q. Do you still hold the Power of Attorney?
A. It’s unclear at this time.

WHO HOLDS THE POWERE OF ATTORNEY….IF HE DOES NOT WHO DOES….
373. R Q. So you don’t have the Power of Attorney here, and I understand you drafted this agreement, is that correct?
A. Due to Marcello DiFrancesco and the confidentiality agreements around this whole situation signed by David Miotto, Elio Miotto and Marcello DiFrancesco and myself, I believe you’re trying to coerce me into breaking my confidentiality agreement with those three others.

ALL OF US HAVE NEVER SIGNED ANY CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS AND IT IS A FIGMENT OF HIS IMAGINATION THERE IS NO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT IF THERE WAS NO ONE OF US WOULD HAVE ANY HESITATION IN CONSENTING TO THE RELEASE OF THIS SO CALLED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
374. Q. Well, I want to see where – where does it say that Marcello DiFrancesco is involved in this company – is involved in this agreement?
A. There’s a series of agreements that he was involved in, this being one of them.
375. Q. Now, this particular document says “Agreement, February 9th, 2006.” Mr. Marcello DiFrancesco didn’t have anything to do with this document?
A. He had everything to do with this document.

I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT DOCUMENT AT ALL IN FACT JB PROHIBITED ELIO FORM SHOWING OR DISCUSSING THIS DOCUMENT WITH ME AND TOLD ELIO THAT THE MONEY WAS COMING AND THAT IT MAY BE PAID TO HIM IN PANAMA WHEN THEY WERE BOTH THERE
376. Q. Did you draft this? Did you draw this up?
A. No, I provided information for this.
377. Q. Who drew it up?
A. I’m not sure, sir. It was done by – in-
378. Q. I’m suggesting to you that you drew it up?
A. Well, it was done in Panama.

FRAGO DID NOT DRAFT IT AND ELIO WAS TOLD NOT TO SAY OR DISCUSS ANYTHING IN FRAGOS PRESENCE BECAUSE FRAGO WAS NOT TO BE TOLD ANYTHING AT ALL
379. Q. Well, who was in Panama at the time?
A. Elio Miotto was in Panama at the time, so-
380. Q. With you, right?
A. Yes.
381. Q. Okay, and you drew it up?
A. No, this was a cooperative effort between, if my memory serves, between Elio Miotto who signed this willingly, as you can see, and myself and an attorney, and two other representatives of the attorney.

IT WAS ALL JB WHO DRAFTED THIS AND ELIO HAD NOTING TO DO WITH IT AND WAS NEVER SHOWN IT UNTIL HE WAS ASKED TO SIGN AND IF HE DID NOT SIGN HE WOULD NOT GET HIS SHARES
382. Q. Okay, but their names aren’t on here, are they?
A. This document is registered in the Registry in Panama, sir, so, you know, it’s been duly stamped.
383. Q. Duly stamped in what Registry?
A. Well, it’s in the Republic of Panama. It’s in – I don’t know the actual – the official -
384. Q. You don’t really know what you’re talking about, do you?
A. Well, would you like me to tell you what I’m talking about? I’m trying to tell you that this document here is in the records in Panama, stamped, meaning it’s been authenticated.
385. Q. What do you mean the records in Panama? What kind of records, in the post office? What – what office has it been registered in?
A. I’m not sure of the name of the office because it’ll be in Spanish but it’ll be in wherever the records are kept for incorporations or corporations.
386. Q. And how do you know it’s been – it’s been registered?
A. Because Mr. Miotto and myself insisted that it was, in front of -
387. Q. And who did you – who did you insist to?
A. A lawyer in Panama, and Mr. Frego.
388. Q. How do you spell that?
A. I’m not sure. Mr. Miotto has all his information, so maybe you should ask him.
389. Q. No, I’m asking you.
A. I just told you, I don’t know.
390. Q. You don’t know how to spell it?
A. No, I don’t.
391. Q. Do you want to take a guess?
A. No, I don’t.

HE OWES MONEY TO FRAGO AS WELL AND EVEN BORROWED MONEY FROM HIM
392. Q. That’s the lawyer actually that you found down in Panama, isn’t it?
A. No, it’s a lawyer that -
393. Q. Yes, it is.
A. - followed Shoregate Investments since it’s inception.
394. R Q. And who caused Shoregate Investments Inc. to be incorporated?
A. You’re treading into Marcello DiFrancesco territory.
395. Q. So this is an agreement where it says “between Miotto and Bionda”, is that what you’re saying?
A. It’s an agreement that has obviously been signed by Mr. Elio Miotto and myself.
396. Q. No, I want you to explain this to me. It says “As Co-Powers of Attorneys, Miotto and Bionda agree to the following terms.”
A. It’s pretty self-explanatory.
397. Q. Now, the only shareholders in the company, as I understand the state of existence of the company’s books at the present time, are Elio Miotto and Marcia Erin Mackesy. Is that correct?
A. I have – I have no knowledge of that. I don’t know what your client has done with his shares, and I don’t know what Marcia Erin Mackesy has done with hers.
398. Q. Oh, you don’t know. That’s your wife, right?
A. It’s my common-law spouse.
399. Q. Your common-law spouse, and how long have you been together?
A. Uh – ten years.
400. Q. Okay, so you don’t know what she’s done?
A. I do not know what she’s done.
401. Q. Okay, so you don’t negotiate on her behalf?
A. No, not with this.
402. Q. You never do anything on her behalf?
A. Sure I do, but not with this.
403. Q. Not with respect to this company?
A. No, I had no knowledge about this.
404. Q. Okay.
A. It’s not my business and confidentiality agreements I take seriously, unlike your client.

WHERE ARE THESE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS HE KEEPS REFERRING TO
405. Q. Okay, so I’m going to show you an e-mail dated October 3rd, 2006 to Elio Miotto from yourself.
A. Mm, hmm.
406. Q. Do you want to take a look at that? Did you send that e-mail to Elio? We’ll mark that as the next exhibit. I believe it’s probably the first one on this examination.
A. It appears I did, yes.
407. Q. Okay, let’s pass it over.
MR. REID: Let’s see.
408. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I’d like to mark it, please. You can have it back, Mr. Reid. I just want to get it marked so we don’t lose the train of things. I’ll try and mark it right on the face of the document. That’s exhibit number one.

EXHIBIT NO. 1 E-mail dated October 3, 2006 from Elio Miotto to Bionda.

( produced and marked )

409. MR. ZELDIN: There you go, duly marked as exhibit one.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

410. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, back on the record, your e-mail says “This is not the e-mail I was talking about. That will come later today. Regarding Shoregate, you should do your research anyway at Ocean Club but she is not interested in not knowing for sure what she’s doing presently. So you can consider that number gone unless you have changed circumstances.” Who is the she?
A. I’m not sure, sir. That’s -
411. Q. Okay, you’re not sure?
A. Well, read -
412. Q. That’s – that’s your answer?
A. Well, read a little bit further -
413. Q. Why don’t you read it over – read it over yourself and I’ll ask you. Maybe that’ll hurry things along.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

414. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Have you had an opportunity now to read it?
A. Yeah.
415. Q. Okay.
A. Although it’s unclear but as - as there’s no other name in it but if you’re talking about Shoregate, you’re talking about Marcia.
416. Q. That’s right, and that’s your common-law wife, right?
A. Yes, I need to be clear when I say something, sir, if it’s correct or not. That’s why – if I ask to see something or if I can’t fully answer -
417. Q. I’m happy to show you the documents, sir. I’m happy to show you the document.
A. I appreciate that, thank you.
418. Q. Okay, and in essence, you’re negotiating with Elio for you wife in this correspondence?
A. If I was the Power of Attorney, then I have every right to negotiate for the company.
419. Q. Well, you don’t need a Power of Attorney to negotiate on behalf of your spouse if she’s a shareholder or she owns some property.
A. I would need a Power of Attorney to negotiate on any piece of property, I would hope, but un- I wish your clients would follow that because all along they haven’t -
420. Q. Well, I’m suggesting to you, sir, you don’t need a Power of Attorney but, clearly, in this – in this document you’re negotiating on behalf of your common-law spouse, Marcia Mackesy, correct?
A. I’m negotiating on behalf of Shoregate Investments by the looks of things to me. That’s my interpretation.
421. Q. How can you negotiate on behalf of Shoregate Investments? What do you have to negotiate?
A. I don’t know what I have to negotiate but if I was negotiating on behalf of Shoregate Investments, that’s - I would have a Power of Attorney.
422. Q. Shore – Shoregate Investments is – is simply a corporate entity.
A. Okay. I don’t know how to answer that. That’s a statement.
423. Q. So you’re telling me that Marcia Mackesy doesn’t know – or you don’t know anything about the company insofar as Marcia Mackesy is concerned?
A. I’m saying right now, sir, that I don’t have the authority -
424. Q. No, about ten, 15 minutes ago in this examination, before we clarified who the “she” is in Exhibit 1, you – you told me that Marcia Mackesy does what she wants in respect to the shares that she owns.
A. Well, whoever the owners of any shares can do whatever they want, so I -
425. Q. No, I – sir -
A. I don’t tell anybody -
426. Q. - don’t answer my question -
A. - what to do.
427. Q. - with a general statement.
A. Then answer.
428. Q. You’re clearly negotiating in the correspondence of October 3, 2006 for your common-law spouse?
A. If I was given authority then – then I would be negotiating. If I wasn’t, then I wouldn’t.
MR. REID: To be fair, I thought he was referring to the present; and the document refers to something in the past.
429. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, Mr. Reid, you know you’re not clarifying anything. The witness understood.
THE DEPONENT: Again, a statement on your part or a suggestion, sir. You’re asking trick questions, so why don’t you ask a direct question.
430. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I’m suggesting to you that your wife does anything you want.
A. Then you’re incorrect. That’s a really broad statement and -
431. Q. I’m suggesting -
A. - you should probably clarify that what you’re suggesting.
432. Q. I’m suggesting to you that you put the shares into her name so that she could hold them and you deprived Elio Miotto of the 50% share interest in – in Shoregate.
A. I’d - you’re incorrect. I don’t – I don’t know why you’re coming to those assumptions but -
433. Q. I’m suggesting to you that when you talk about “she” in Exhibit 1, all you – what you’re really doing is just trying to suggest that you don’t have authority over your wife but it’s really you behind it, isn’t it?
A. No, that’s incorrect.
434. Q. Now, we noticed that in Exhibit 1, you indicated you don’t own a house.
A. That’s correct.
435. Q. So, as a result, if you don’t own a house and you live in the house and reside in the house and use the property, then you should be expected to pay for it, shouldn’t you?
A. Not if I have a prior deal that says I do not have to pay for it.
436. Q. But it doesn’t say that in your deal, does it?
A. Well, I’m talking right back from 2002, sir, when your clients have suggested I owed him rent right from the start. There’s never -
437. Q. Well, I’m saying -
A. There’s never been an agreement for rent on 255 Allison Point Road.
438. Q. Well, I’m suggesting to you that there is a – that there is an agreement.
A. Well, you’re wrong.
439. MR. ZELDIN: Off the record.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

440. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Were you not supposed to pay the taxes on 255 Allison?
A. Yes, I agreed to pay the taxes on 255 Allison.
441. Q. Why didn’t you pay the taxes?
A. I could pay them whenever I want. They’ve never been paid yet.
442. Q. What do you mean you can pay them whenever you want?
A. My agreement was I could pay them as – actually, the agreement was that Mr. Miotto doesn’t go into his pocket on 255 Allison Road, which he has not done to date. Taxes have been compiling.

WE HAVE GONE DEEP INTO OUR POCKETS WITH INSURANCE AND THE OBLIGATION TO PAY TAXES AS WELL
443. Q. Okay, so that’s the deal, right?
A. That’s the deal, right.
444. Q. That’s the deal, okay.
A. That’s the deal.
445. Q. Okay, so the deal is whatever you say it is, is that the situation?
A. Well, the deal is whatever Mr. Miotto and I came – came up together with.
446. Q. When were you supposed to pay the taxes on 255?
A. I just told you, I could pay them whenever I want. Preferably, we would pay them on a yearly basis or quarterly basis or twice – every two years. He just did not want to go into his own pocket, which he has not done so far.

HE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES FOR YOU TO PAY TAXES AND JB TOLD US THAT HE WAS EXPECTING A KICKER FORM THE POOL AND THAT HE WOULD PAY THE TAXES BUT HE NEVER HAS
447. Q. Okay, now you wrote on May 22nd, 2003 that “The taxes on 255 are not any concern to me at this moment.” Is that correct?
A. That’s correct because I would pay them later.
448. Q. Okay, and -
A. As I -
449. Q. And I’m suggesting to you, sir, that the reason why you said that is because you’re answering a response about “Hey, taxes are not being paid. What’s going on Jordy?”
A. I think -
450. Q. Isn’t that the case?
A. I think that’s your suggestion again, sir.
451. Q. Okay, well why would you mention them?
A. I don’t know. I’m not looking at the document, you know. Once again, it’s -
452. R Q. Okay. Once again, an e-mail dated May 22nd, 2003, “Taxes on 255 are not any concern to me at this moment.” Did you write that or didn’t you?
A. Addressed to Marcello DiFrancesco. Marcello DiFrancesco is my former lawyer, is now working with you, sir.


HE WAS WRITING ME AND TOLD ME TO TELL ELIO AND DAVID
453. Q. Okay, so you won’t answer that? Asfaras you’re concerned, you don’t have to answer anything that deals with Marcello DiFrancesco and it’s you, and you alone, who decides when something pertains to Marcello DiFrancesco?
A. That’s your assumption.

EXHIBIT NO. 2 E-mail dated May 22nd, 2003.

( produced and marked )


454. Q. And were – was there an automobile that you were permitted to use?
A. Do you want to be more specific?
455. Q. A Mercedes Benz?
A. Um – I’m waiting for a question. I drove a Mercedes Benz for some time.
456. R Q. Okay, whose Mercedes Benz was it?
A. It was pertaining to Marcello DiFrancesco.
457. Q. Okay -
A. Well, you look at who leased – who leased the Mercedes Benz.
458. Q. Okay, I’m going to show you a document and this is an e-mail of 30th September, 2003.
A. Mm, hmm.
459. R Q. Did you author that?
A. Mm, hmm. Let me have a look. This is made out to Marcello DiFrancesco. It’s a document that’s been sent to Marcello DiFrancesco, therefore, I cannot comment on it as he was my former attorney, now working against me with the Miotto’s.


HE ASSUMES THAT I AM WORKING AGAINST HIM…..
460. Q. So we’ll make that – that is your e-mail though, right?
A. That’s a document -
461. Q. That’s your e-mail, you sent it, didn’t you?
A. That’s a document I sent to Marcello DiFrancesco, therefore, I won’t comment on it.
462. MR. ZELDIN: I believe this is Exhibit 3.


EXHIBIT NO. 3 E-mail dated September 30th, 2003.

( produced and marked )

463. R MR. ZELDIN: Q. And in this document, it says you – “I am arranging the house situation. The insurance. The Benz. Back rents.” Does it say that in the document?
A. It’s a document I – was from Marcello DiFrancesco. I have no comment.
464. Q. So you’re refusing to answer whether it says that? Well, the document speaks for itself. The back rents, are they pertaining to 255 Allison’s?
A. I have no idea.
465. R Q. You have no idea. Are you the author of this document of August 14th, 2003? It’s entitled “To Pool participants”.
A. Marcello DiFrancesco is the trustee of the pool, therefore, I have no comment.

THE DOCUMENTS SAYS TO THE POOL PARTICIPANTS IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE CAUGHT BY THE SOLICITOR AND CLIENT PRIVILEGE IT WAS A NEWS UPDATE AND RELEASE AND I WAS BEING USED TO DISTRIBUTE AND GET THE WORD OUT
466. Q. But it wasn’t intended to be read just by Marcello. It was intended to be read by all the pool participants.
A. Mr. DiFrancesco is trustee of the said pool, therefore -
467. R Q. Did you author that document?
A. Once again my right’s being violated.
468. Q. Oh, I’m sure. We’ll mark this as the next exhibit.
BY THE REPORTER: Four.


EXHIBIT NO. 4 document dated August 14th, 2003 “To pool participants”

( produced and marked )



469. R MR. ZELDIN: Q. Letter of October 14th, 2003. This says “Nobody, especially me, asked you to be a part of this. You were either brought to the table or asked to be a part. After listening what was said, you made a decision to be included. You, not me, not Marcello, not your dog, only you. Other than the capital you provided, you have no further input in this venture, legally speaking.” Did you write that?
A. I have no comment on the document, sir.
470. Q. Okay, well you seem to know a few things about legal matters.
MR. REID: That’s another comment.
471. MR. ZELDIN: Q. No, I’m suggesting to him - where do you get your legal knowledge from?
A. I have no legal knowledge.
472. R Q. So why are you commenting here about matters “legally speaking”?
A. I have no comment on that document, sir.
473. R Q. Is this the pool that you’re – that the Miottos invested in?
A. I have no comment on the document, sir.
474. R Q. I’m suggesting to you it is the pool that was invested in, is that correct?
A. I have no comment on the document, sir.
475. R Q. Have you discussed the shares in Shoregate with your common-law wife?

HOW DOES THE SHARES OF SHOREGATE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MDF
A. That’s a matter pertaining to Marcello DiFrancesco and -
476. Q. Okay, and?
A. Confidentiality of the company, and I’m not comfortable or authorized to speak on his behalf.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT MDF SHOULD SPEAK ON HIS OWN BEHALF
477. Q. Did you discuss this agreement with your wife?
A. No, sir.
478. Q. Did you ever discuss the agreement with your wife?
A. Which agreement?
479. Q. The agreement dated February 9th, 1996 which is -
MR. REID: 2006?
480. MR. ZELDIN: Q. 2006 – forgive me for saying 1996. It’s attached to your affidavit. Is it – was it not made an exhibit?
A. Yeah, it’s right here.
MR. REID: Yes.
481. MR. ZELDIN: Q. I can’t see, is it – is that Exhibit B -
MR. REID: Probably.
482. MR. ZELDIN: Q. - to your affidavit? It’s up in the top lefthand corner so -
MR. REID: That’s right. The first exhibit is a trust agreement. That’s the second, Exhibit B.
483. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, so asfaras you’re concerned, sir -
A. At that time, I was the Power of Attorney of the company and I had -
484. Q. So you didn’t discuss this agreement with your wife, did you?
A. I don’t recall and as the Power of Attorney, I was the Power of Attorney of the Corporation and I had authorization, as the Power of Attorney, to work on best interests for the company.
485. Q. But your – your wife didn’t authorize that?
A. I don’t recall, sir. I was the Power of Attorney. I had full authorization -
486. Q. For the company?
A. - to operate on my own, yes.

BUT HE WAS A CO-POWER OF ATTORNEY HOW COULD HE OPERATE ON HIS OWN
487. Q. For the company?
A. For the – for Shoregate Investments.
488. Q. And wasn’t – weren’t the shares supposed to be held by Elio?
A. No.
489. Q. Weren’t – were they not supposed to be part of the security for him investing in the pool with his brother?
A. Absolutely not.
490. Q. Okay. So how did Elio end up owning 50% of the shares?
A. Uh -
491. Q. Were they not given as – as security for his investment?
A. Uh – I don’t recall the exact way but Mr. DiFrancesco, Mr. David Miotto, Mr. Elio Miotto and myself met between February 8th and April 22nd, 2006 and made agreements which have all been violated in confidentiality by the Miottos and DiFrancesco.
HE DOES NOT RECALL HOW ELIO ENDED UP WITH OWNING A PROPERTY OR 50% OF A PROPERTY WORTH OVER ONE MILLION USD ?
SO THE VIOLATIONS DEAL WITH THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE AGREEMENT AND IN WHAT WAY WAS THE CONFIDENCE BETRAYED WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE RELYING UPON TO SUGGEST THAT THE CONFIDENCE WAS BETRAYED WHAT OTHER BREACHES HAVE OCCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AGREEMENTS YOU SAY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN BREACHED OR VIOLATED
492. Q. But you don’t recall, that’s the – basically, you -
A. I don’t recall the -
493. Q. You were down in Panama. You did all this work and you don’t recall. Okay.
A. Are you speaking for me again, sir?
494. Q. It’s a cross-examination. I’m entitled to suggest to you -
A. Is it?
495. Q. - something. It’s a proper mode of questioning. Your lawyer didn’t object.
A. Okay.
496. Q. That’s your answer, it’s okay, that you agree with this statement?
A. No, I agree with the fact that you’re speaking for me is okay by you.
497. Q. Do you agree with the assertion I made? Let’s keep this -
A. No.
498. Q. - examination on track.
A. No, I don’t – do not agree with the assertion you made.
499. Q. You don’t, okay. So you don’t remember anything from that time?
A. I remember plenty but I’m bound by confidentiality agreements. I’m bound by the corrupt nature that Marcello DiFrancesco and your clients have operated against me in a legal fashion.

WHAT IS HE SAYING THAT HE IS BOUND BY CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS THAT DO NOT EXIST….THAT HE IS BOUND BY THE CORRUPT MANNER THAT MDF AND EM AND DM ACTED IN A LEGAL FASHION…..IS THIS GUY THE DUMBEST GUY YOU HAVE EVER EXAMINED OR WHAT
500. Q. Okay, but it’s okay for you to show the document and file in court, but you don’t have to answer any questions about it, is that what you’re saying?
A. I – I don’t know. I’m not saying anything. I guess a judge will decide.
501. MR. ZELDIN: Off the record for a moment.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

502. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Okay, sir, if you turn to Exhibit R of Mr. Elio Miotto’s affidavit of May 9th, 2007.
A. Mm, hmm.
503. Q. Okay, that’s an affidavit of service of Leslie Pelling, process server.
A. Mm, hmm.
504. Q. Do you recall being served with a statement of claim?
A. I do.
505. Q. Okay, and was it on February 13th, 2007?
A. I don’t know.
506. Q. You don’t’ recall?
A. I don’t recall the date, sir.
507. Q. Okay. Chances are this is correct?
A. I don’t know how to answer that. I don’t recall the date.
508. Q. Alright.
A. If I don’t recall the date, how would you like me to answer that?
509. Q. Do you disagree with the fact that you were served on February 13th?
A. I possibly could have been served on February 13th. I’m assuming Mr. Pelling is a – is a law abiding citizen.
510. MR. ZELDIN: We can go off the record if you want to save some tape.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

511. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Do you recall being served with the proceedings in this landlord and tenant matter?
A. Yes, I do.
512. Q. Now, you retained Mr. Reid shortly thereafter? We’re back on the record, weren’t we?
A. I retained Mr. Reid – umm -
513. Q. It’s not a trick question. You don’t have to know the exact date or time.
A. Well, I retained Mr. Reid, I believe, sir, after I was served the – this matter here, like this is the landlord, tenant action.
514. Q. It’s called the landlord and tenant proceeding.
A. Okay. Then I would have retained Mr. Reid after that fact.
515. Q. That’s what I’m talking about.
A. Yes.
516. Q. When I said shortly thereafter because this matter has shorter timelines.
A. Mm, hmm.
517. Q. So you had Mr. Reid attend court for you on April 30th, 2007?
A. I did.
518. Q. And your wife attended court as well, is that correct?
A. I believe she did.
519. Q. Well, you know she did?
A. I believe she did, sir.
520. Q. You saw her there, didn’t you?
A. No, I did not.
521. Q. Why, did she go home when you showed up?
A. She went home prior to me showing up.
522. Q. But you spoke to her, did you not?
A. I don’t recall, sir. I was not in court with my wife.
523. Q. But the two of you spoke?
A. Uh – I believe we said hello on the way outside the court house.
524. Q. Okay, do you mean to say she didn’t contact you regarding the children during the course of the day?
A. We were in contact, yes, and we – the reason we spoke is we had to exchange vehicles. So “hello”, “goodbye”.
525. Q. You didn’t speak about this proceeding?
A. No, not to my recollection. I think there was a time issue of her to get back for the children.
526. Q. And you were watching the children in the morning, is that correct?
A. I was watching the children – not just watching – no, I was watching one child and driving school kids around for an activity that particular day. It was my day.

HE WASN’T WORKING FOR NASA THAT DAY HE TOOK A BREAK FROM THE CEREBRAL STUFF AND DROVE CHILDREN AROUND
527. Q. Do you hold a bank account, sir?
A. No, I do not.
528. Q. Is any other person holding a bank account for you?
A. Not directly for me.

INDIRECTLY FOR YOU
529. Q. What do you mean by not directly for you?
A. Well, from time to time, if needed, I can – can use – not use – from time to time, if needed -if I needed something cashed or done, my wife would do it for me, common-law Marci. If it was, you know, acceptable.
530. Q. So you use her bank account?
A. No, I don’t use it. From time to time, if needed, I can use it.
531. Q. Is there – is any other person holding any money or operating a bank account for you?
A. No, sir.
532. Q. Do you have any other property?
A. No, sir.
533. Q. What about your vehicle?
A. I don’t have a vehicle.
534. Q. Who owns the vehicle?
A. Which vehicle?
535. Q. The vehicle that you and your wife use for transportation?
A. Which vehicle? You need to be more specific, sir.
536. Q. Okay, how many vehicles do you have?
A. I don’t have any. I don’t own any.
537. Q. Okay, what vehicles do you and your common-law wife use?
A. I drive a – when available, my mother’s vehicle.
538. Q. And what about your common-law spouse?
A. She drives – I believe she has a vehicle.
539. Q. You believe she has?
A. Mm, hmm.
540. Q. You’re not sure?
A. I’m not sure.
541. Q. Okay, it’s only parked in the driveway at your residence?
A. No, you’re asking about ownership, sir. You’re going to have to ask her about that.
542. Q. What about the car that she uses? Let’s use the word “use”.
A. What about the car she uses? You’re asking me about ownership. I don’t know the ownership of my wife’s status.
543. Q. Okay, but she uses a car, is that correct?
A. She has a car, yes.
544. Q. Okay, so you don’t have any property whatsoever in your name?
A. No, I don’t.
545. Q. And you have no property that you’re entitled to?
A. I have assets that I’m fighting your clients for that have been stolen from me, if that’s what you want to talk – talk about.

ACCUSING ME, EM AND DM OF STEALING HIS ASSETS
546. Q. You have assets?
A. I have – I used to have assets in my name that your clients have stolen from me.

I CAN BRING EVIDENCE EVEN IF IT WAS OTHERWISE COVERED BY PRIVILEGE TO REFUTE THAT ASSERTION WHY DOES MARK REID THE OTHER GENIUS NOT KNOW THIS
547. Q. Well, I’ve tried to talk to you but you won’t talk to me.
A. No, you haven’t tried to talk to me, sir; you’ve tried to position me.
548. Q. Now what, pray tell, are those assets?
A. I was once in control of a company called 1411187 Ontario Inc., and through a series of fraudulent activities between Marcello DiFrancesco, David and Elio Miotto, somehow they ended up with the corporation.
549. Q. What’s the fraudulent activity that David Miotto did?
A. Oh, he’s – he’s part of Mr. Elio Miotto. Why else would he be standing here today.
550. Q. No, I want to know what he did –
A. He’s a -
551. Q. What’s the fraudulent activity that he did?
A. He’s a party to Elio, everything Elio Miotto has done. He’s -
552. Q. Well, what did Elio Miotto do?
A. Elio Miotto, Marcello DiFrancesco, David Miotto have done a number of things that have been inconsistent with what we know as law.


WHAT IS THE LAW JORDAN WHERE DID YOU LEARN THE LAW AND WHAT LEGAL EDUCATION DO YOU HAVE
553. Q. Well, what are they?
A. I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, sir, but we’re investigating that right now.

WHO IS INVESTIGATION IT AND WHAT ARE THERE NAMES
554. Q. So you –in essence, you can’t point to one thing?
A. It would be preliminary for me to point to anything at this particular time. I feel I’ve been defrauded by your clients and I’m going to attempt to prove that.

WHEN WILL YOU ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT HAS ANYONE ELSE DEFRAUDED YOU HAS X DEFRAUDED YOU HAVE YOU INVESTED MONEY WITH THE WRONG PEOPLE AGAIN LIKE YOU DID WITH IFPA

555. Q. Did you discuss this case with your common-law spouse?
A. This landlord tenant case?
556. Q. Yes.
A. I have discussed it with her but, you know, we talked about today I was coming down here. We haven’t discussed anything specifics.
557. Q. Have you discussed this case at all with her?
A. This particular case, have I discussed with her, yes. I have discussed with her.
558. Q. And what did you discuss with her?
A. Basically court dates and nothing in too much detail. She’s representing herself. And, as you know, she’s had no knowledge of any of this; and, therefore, she’s going to seek representation and defend herself.
559. Q. Well, you’re saying as I know. I don’t know.
A. Oh, I believe you do know, sir.
560. Q. Well, did you tell her what to put into her affidavit of May 8th, 2007?
A. No, I did not.
561. Q. Then where did she come into that information?
A. I don’t know. I never read her affidavit, sir.
562. Q. You never the affidavit?
A. I’ve never read the affidavit.
563. Q. Here, have a look at it.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

THE DEPONENT: Been told that she was – been noted in default by either you or the courts or Mr. Reid. So that’s where she got that information. It says right here “Jordan told me that he owned 255 Allison Point.” So that’s where she got that information.
564. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Mm, hmm.
A. “I later learned that Jordan’s mortgage was not in his name but a corporate name.” And she knows Marcello DiFrancesco although she’s never done any business with him. Any information here that she would have got she would have needed from myself but it would have been over time and, I guess, from being – just at quick look, I would imagine I provided, if she asked me questions, so that she could – I don’t know when she did the affidavit, sir, but she would have learned certain information over time or whatever; but, generally, I kept everything from her.

YOU KEEP THINGS FROM YOUR WIFE YOUR SOUL MATE THE MOTHER OF YOUR CHILDREN YOU KEEP THINGS FROM HER THAT YOU DON’T WANT HER TO KNOW DID YOU KEEP INFORMATION FROM ELIO AND MDF YOU TOLD THEM EVERYTHING AND YOU WEE COMPLETELY HONEST WITH THEM WEREN’T YOU
565. Q. Okay, pass it back. For the record, that’s the affidavit of Marcia Mackesy dated May 8th, 2007. It’s a copy, we’ll make – mark that as the next exhibit.

EXHIBIT NO. 5 Affidavit of Marcia Mackesy dated May 8th, 2007.

( produced and marked )


566. MR. ZELDIN: Q. So, in other words, sir, you did discuss the case with her, didn’t you?
A. No, I haven’t discussed the case with her, sir.
567. Q. Well, you told her a lot of things.
A. No, I did not -
568. Q. Enough to fill out several pages of an affidavit.
A. Would you like my words or your words, sir? On the -
569. Q. I’m not -
A. I did not -
570. Q. I’m not intending to argue with you but you told her certain things.
A. I did not tell her anything in order for her to make out her affidavit.
571. Q. You told her that you were a venture capitalist?
A. Well, I am a venture capitalist at times, yes, and she’s been around me for ten years.


WHAT IS A VENTURE CAPITALIST DO YOU HAVE A CERTIFICATE OR DID YOU DO THE SECURITIES COURSE
572. Q. Sorry?
A. I said she’s been around me for ten years so she could make that assumption on her own.
573. Q. So you told your wife that you owned 255 Allison’s Point?
A. I told her it’s – I believed, as I always have, that it was being held for me and that I was the owner or the eventual owner as shares were being held in trust. I certainly didn’t tell her that but that’s exactly what I believed. I’ve had multiple discussions with Mr. Elio Miotto as when he would turn over the shares of 1530495.

WERE YOU SUPPOSED TO PAY HIM FOR THE SHARES HOW MUCH WERE YOU SUPPOSED TO PAY WHY DON’T YOU HAVE A TRUST AGREEMENT YOU HAD ONE FOR 141187 DIDN’T YOU
574. Q. Just for off for a second.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

575. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Now do you discuss your business with your wife or don’t you?
A. Not normally, sir.
576. Q. So you don’t discuss things with your wife?
A. That’s not the question you asked me. You asked me if I discuss my business -
577. Q. I’m asking -
A. - and now you ask me a different question. I do discuss things with my wife.
578. Q. So – well, do you or don’t you?
A. What’s the question?
579. Q. Do you discuss your business affairs with your wife?
A. No.
580. Q. You don’t?
A. Not normally.
581. Q. Did you read over Elio’s affidavit of May 9th, 2007? Did you have a chance to scan it?
A. No.
582. Q. Do you want to take a moment?
A. No.
583. Q. Sorry?
A. I don’t really want to read it, sir. I’ll read it when I go home.


WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT READ IT WHEN I GO HOME PLEASE CAN I GO HOME I NEED TO REST FROM ALL OF THIS IM STRESSED OUT AND NEED A NAP PLEASE DON’T ASK ME ANY MORE QUESTIONS
584. Q. Well, I want to ask you some questions about it.
A. Well then, go ahead and ask.
585. Q. Would your wife know anything about the matters deposed to in that affidavit by Elio Miotto?
A. I don’t know. I can’t speak for my wife, sir.
586. R Q. Okay. Did you send an e-mail on Friday, September 17th, 2004 to Marcello which said “By the way, for information purposes only, my wife is in full knowledge of the troubles with the pool”?
A. I have no idea but if that’s got Marcello’s name on it, you - my answer is I have nothing to say about Marcello DiFrancesco.
587. Q. I’m going to show you this e-mail -
A. I have nothing to say about the paper. It’s Marcello DiFrancesco who was my former lawyer who is now in your camp, my rights are being violated.
588. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, well mark that as the next exhibit.

EXHIBIT NO. 6 E-mail dated September 17th, 2004.

( produced and marked )


589. MR. ZELDIN: Q. So does your wife know about the pool or not?
A. She’s aware of a pool, yes.
590. Q. She’s aware of the pool. Is she aware of the problems with the pool?
A. Absolutely.
591. R Q. And what are those problems?
A. The pool is Marcello DiFrancesco. I decline to comment.

MDF IS NOT THE POOL ITS JORDAN’S POOL AND HE KEEPS WRITING TO OTHERS IN THE POOL TO HELP HIM OUT AND OT BE PATIENT….THE MONEY IS STILL COMING
592. Q. I was waiting for that to come.
A. I’m sure you were, sir.
593. R Q. Why don’t you make the objection clearly on the record so we’ll hear it again? I’m not sure our reporter got it. Can you tell me who X is, please?

IS HE SUGGESTING THAT X IS MDF ……I HAVE NEVER MET X OR ANYONE WHO CONTROLS THE POOL EXCEPT JORDAN X IS NOT MDF IS IT
A. Marcello DeFrancesco is my former lawyer and I’m not going to discuss anything that has to do with Marcello DeFrancesco.
594. R Q. Alright, X is the mysterious banking figure that you say you know, according to what Elio Miotto says and according to all the various e-mails that you’ve sent. Is that not true?
A. I’m not going to discuss anything to do with Marcello DeFrancesco business, he’s my former lawyer.
595. Q. And I’m suggesting to you that you’re not answering the questions because there is no Mr. X.
A. Are you making that assumption, sir?
596. Q. I’m suggesting that to you, sir. Yes, or no?
A. What is it?
597. Q. You’re refusing to answer because there is no Mr. X and there was no investment pool?
A. No, I’m refusing to answer because Mr. DeFrancesco’s my former attorney and he is providing you information, therefore, violating my rights.


I HAVE NOT PROVIDED YOU WITH ANYTHING ELIO HAD COPIES OF ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS AND HE GOT THEM FROM OTHERS
598. R Q. How about Jeff McCargar, is he your former attorney?
A. Uh -
599. Q. We’ve already established that and the letter is addressed to him as well.
A. That has no bearing, sir.
600. Q. Looking at Exhibit C of Elio Miotto’s affidavit of May 9th, 2007 -
A. It’s made out Marcello DiFrancesco and there’s confidentiality agreements – confidentiality agreements bound with it.

WHERE ARE THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS WHERE ARE THE SIGNATURES TO THESE AGREEMENTS WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT
601. Q. Okay.
A. And I will not discuss anything that is pertinent to Marcello DeFrancesco.
602. Q. So what you’re telling me is if you run a fraud scheme and -
A. I’m not telling you anything.
603. Q. - you have people sign confidentiality agreements, then asfaras you’re concerned you don’t have to answer for your fraudulent behaviour, is that correct?
MR. REID: That’s not what he was saying. He was indicating that you obtained information from Marcello DeFrancesco. He doesn’t want to answer any questions based on information you’ve received from his former lawyer. Another objection to questions about the pool had to do with the fact that it’s a subject of a Toronto lawsuit in which judgement was obtained.

THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT WHERE YOU GOT YOUR INFORMATION FROM I FORWARDED EVERYTHING TAT I GOT TO EVERYONE IN THE POOL ASK ANYONE IN THE POOL THE INFORMATION WAS SHARED AT ALL TIMES AND JORDAN WAS TO PROVIDE UPDATES ON A REGULAR BASIS BUT HE NEVER DID AND WHEN AN UPDATE WAS PROVIDED HE HAD STANDING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ME TO SEND ALL OF WHAT I GOT TO EVERYONE SO THERE WOULD BE NO SECRET AT ALL AMONGST PEOPLE IN THE POOL
604. MR. ZELDIN: That’s right.
MR. REID: We’re restricting questions to his affidavit which has to do with a landlord and tenant application.
605. MR. ZELDIN: Yes, which he defends on the basis of – of an affidavit in which he’s mentioned the pool on several occasions and mentioned business activities with Elio Miotto.
MR. REID: That’s right, he’s saying that I was – there is a pool, he was in business with Elio.
606. MR. ZELDIN: But he won’t give us any details.
MR. REID: That is the subject of another lawsuit.
607. MR. ZELDIN: Okay. Because the whole pool was all a big scam wasn’t it?
THE DEPONENT: That’s absolutely incorrect.
BY MR. ZELDIN:
608. R Q. Okay, how can you demonstrate, sir, that it wasn’t a scam? You can’t demonstrate that, can you?

WHERE IS THE MONEY WHERE DID THE INVESTMENT GO INTO DO YOU HAVE PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENTS FROM THE INVESTMENTS HAVE YOU EVER PRODUCED OR PROVIDED PEOPLE WITH A PROFIT OR LOSS STATEMENT OTHER THAN YOUR UPDATES THAT PROFITS WOULD BE COMING SOON
A. Anything to do with the pool, Marcello Defrancesco, I will not speak about.
609. Q. How about the pool and Elio Miotto?
A. Marcello DeFrancesco is the pool, sir.

IF MARCELLO IS THE POOL WHY DO YOU WRITE THE UPDATES AND GO TO SWITZERLAND WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO WRITE TO PEOPLE TELLING THEM THEY ARE SECURED AND THAT THE MONEY IS COMING AND THAT YOU HAVE OPENED BANK ACCOUNTS AND WILL BE IN RECEIPT OF THE MONEY SOON
610. Q. Okay.
A. So when you mention the pool, it’s Marcello DeFrancesco.
611. Q. How about Jeff McCargar?
A. What about Jeff McCargar?
612. Q. He’s not here. He’s not a party to this lawsuit.

MDF IS NOT A PARTY OT THIS LAWSUIT EITHER I HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN AT ALL
A. Well what about Jeff McCargar?
613. Q. Did he lose money as well in the pool?
A. Jeff McCargar has never lost any money asfaras I know, sir.
614. Q. He’s never lost any money?
A. No.
615. R Q. How about other people who -
A. I don’t know.
616. Q. - lost money in IFPA or International Financial Privacy Association?
A. You’re talking about things, sir, that I have no comment on.
617. Q. Now, not to make too fine a point of it, you did sign a release of Marcello DeFrancesco’s wife and relating to 141187(sic) Ontario?
A. There was a series of documents. I don’t have them in front of me.
618. Q. But you mentioned it yourself?
A. Yeah, if you want to provide it to me, I could be more clear.
619. Q. Okay, we’ll see if I have it here.
A. I hope so.
620. Q. We can go off the record for a moment.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

621. MR. ZELDIN: Q. So I showed you a release dated April 21, 2006.
A. Yes.
622. Q. Okay, and that was your signature on the release?
A. Yes.
623. Q. And you released and forever discharged Marcello DeFrancesco, Gabriella Pierantoni, and 1411187 Ontario Inc.?
A. I signed the bottom of that document and it was in conjunction with about 12 other documents where we all mutually released each other which since then, Marcello DeFrancesco, Elio Miotto, and David Miotto have broken the other agreements. And the interesting note of that particular document is whatever that date was, April 21st, 2006, of the release, that was the only release that was ever signed for 1411187; and interesting to note that without my approval, in the year 2002, two mortgages were put on 255 Allison Point Road –

WHAT WERE THE VIOLATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT THAT MDF CAUSED OR EM OR DM WHAT WAS VIOLATED AND WHERE ARE THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS YOU KEEP REFERRING TO ARE THEY IN YOUR AFFIDAVIT DID YOU SAY WHEN THE POOL PAYS OFF EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY AND GET SO MUCH MORE THAN WHAT IS BEING AGREEDTO HERE AND NOW
624. Q. You’re saying now?
A. - with that – with that company. No, I’m not saying now, in 2002, and your client signed both of them.
625. Q. Okay, so you’re saying -
A. Illegally - Illegally put -
626. Q. So you’re saying now that it was without your approval but back in 2002, you were all friends, weren’t you?
A. Well, if we need to see some documentation I’d be happy to look at it.
627. Q. You were all friends in 2002?
A. Oh, we were. Yeah, we were very good friends. There’s two mortgages, one for $540,000.00 and the other for $705,000.00 that were legally put on without my knowledge.

THERE WAS NEVER A MORTGAGE PUT ON FOR 705k THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY OCCURRED AND THE CONSIDERATION WAS 705k NO MORTGAGE AND THE OTHER WAS A MORTGAGE THAT ELIO PUT ON WHEN HE WAS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHEN ITT WAS BECOMING CLEAR TO ME THAT JORDAN WAS LYING
628. Q. But you released the company anyways?
A. Not till 2006.
629. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, let’s go off for a moment.

(OFF RECORD DISCUSSION)
(UPON RESUMING)

630. MR. ZELDIN: Q. Do you have anything else that you want to add to any of your answers that you’ve given?
A. Yes, I’d like your client to live up to his responsibilities and get on with this.

WHAT OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES AND THOSE OF THE POOL AND THE INVESTMENTS WHERE IS OUR MONEY WHO HAS IT AND HOW MUCH MONEY DID THEY MAKE WITH OUT MONEY AND WHAT ABOUT THE POOL MAKING 15 MILLION DOLLARS WHAT OF ELIOS 8.8 MILLION AND MY LEGAL FEES AND MY 175,000 ….ETC ETC..
631. Q. Okay, you don’t have any other clarifications of any answers?
A. No, I don’t, sir.
632. Q. I’m not sure if we made it clear on the record, in that release – I think I indicated it released Marcello DeFrancesco who you don’t want to talk about, Gabriella Pierantoni and 1411187 Ontario Inc. from any claims by reason of existence of a trust agreement. Your wife doesn’t work and you’re not making any money right now, is that true?
A. Um – the last couple of months have been a little tough due to this lawsuit. Uh –


WHY ISN’T NASA PAYING HIM FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL COMPUTER GAMING SIMULATION MODEL HE HAS BEEN WORKINGON FOR 10 YEARS ISN’T HE GOING TO FIND THE BLACK HOLE WHERE THE MONEY WENT SO WE CAN GET IT BACK USING HIS GAME THEORY AND HIS PARABOLIC CALCULUS


633. Q. Well, you’re not – you’re not making any money because you’re working on some highly secretive computer deal or something?
A. That’s not how I explained it, sir, but if you need to emphasize it that way -
634. Q. Some high tech thing?
A. Yeah. It’s just called private information so right now I am working on a project that is not paying, that’s correct.
635. Q. So you don’t have any money, do you?
A. No, I don’t.
636. Q. So you don’t have any money for rent, is that the case?
A. Uh – I don’t have any money but if I needed to rent, if I struck an agreement to rent a property, then I would probably have to borrow it to start, yeah.

COULD YOU BORROW MONEY TO PAY OFF ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO YOU OWE MONEY TO FROM THE POOL OR IFPA
637. Q. But you don’t have any money of your own, that’s what you’re saying?
A. I don’t have any money.
638. Q. Alright.
A. What does mean mean, sir? Like what – how much money are we talking about? I have 310 bucks in my pocket.
639. Q. You don’t have enough money to pay rent at a premises like 255 Allison’s?
A. No, I prefer to – I will – I would prefer to purchase 255 Allison’s pursuant to other agreements but, no, at this time I do not.

YOU DON’T HAVE MONEY BUT YOU WANT TO BUY 255 ALLISONS POINT ROAD HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT
640. Q. But you don’t have any money?
A. No.
641. Q. Do you?
A. But if a reasonable -
642. Q. Where would you borrow the money from?
A. I don’t know, I’d have to figure that out if I needed to borrow the money, sir.
643. Q. Okay, how are you going to borrow money if you don’t have any income and your wife doesn’t work?
A. Well, I would have to figure out who to borrow from and the possibilities of where the funds are coming from.
644. Q. Okay, so maybe someone’s holding money in your name and that’s the reason why you’re saying that you can borrow the money; and what you really mean to say is that you would – you’ve got money hidden away?
A. Did you just speak for me? I’m unclear. It sounded like you spoke for me again, sir.
645. Q. I didn’t speak for you. I’m suggesting to you that either you’ve hidden money away by putting it into someone else’s name or you don’t have any money at all?
A. Well I’ve just told you, I don’t have any money.
646. Q. You don’t have any money.
A. No.
647. Q. You would have to borrow?
A. I would have to borrow.
648. Q. And you don’t really have any collateral?
A. I don’t have any collateral, no.
649. Q. Okay, and your wife doesn’t have any collateral?
A. Well, I don’t know, you’ll have to talk to my wife.
650. Q. You don’t know, do you?
A. No.
651. R Q. She’s got no collateral?
A. I’m pretty sure she doesn’t, sir, yes.
MR. REID: Counsel, I’m instructing him not to answer. It sounds like examination in aid of execution.
652. MR. ZELDIN: Well, it’s not an examination in aid of execution. And I didn’t want to know how much he had in his pocket at the time either.
THE DEPONENT: Sure you did.
653. MR. ZELDIN: Q. So then if an order was obtained against you for costs, you would have no way of paying it, is that what you’re saying?
A. Right now, I wouldn’t. Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
654. Q. That’s exactly the case?
A. Yes, absolutely.
655. R Q. Why did you buy the lot in Panama – in the Bahamas?
A. Marcello DeFrancesco is my former lawyer. He’s now working with you, sir. I cannot answer that question as it violates my rights.
656. Q. Did you file income tax returns last year?
A. No, I have not file income tax returns last year.
657. Q. Have you filed income tax returns in any of the last ten years?
A. I’m not sure of the amounts of years but I haven’t filed in the last few years.
658. Q. I want you to produce your income tax returns.
MR. REID: Well, he just indicated he hasn’t filed.
659. R MR. ZELDIN: Q. Well, I want you to make the inquiry with Revenue Canada to – for the last ten years’ worth of returns?
MR. REID: Well, he’ll refuse to do that. He doesn’t want to draw attention to himself or -
660. MR. ZELDIN: It doesn’t – doesn’t draw attention -
THE DEPONENT: It’s not going to matter anyhow. But when – can you just clarify for me one second, sir.
MR. REID: What you’re suggesting -
THE DEPONENT: Can you - Can you sit there and tell me what I have to do?
MR. REID: What you’re suggesting is you want Revenue Canada to verify that he hasn’t filed returns?
661. MR. ZELDIN: Yes, that there’s no returns on file for those years. I think you’ve seen the document that a person obtains from Revenue Canada when they make an inquiry about themselves. You’ve seen it in Family Law cases, have you not, Mr. Reid?
MR. REID: I’m just –
662. MR. ZELDIN: You get a – either you get a printout of - detailing your filing on, usually on one or two pages, or you get a one-page document says there’s nothing on file for that year.
THE DEPONENT: I’m happy to – to take an order from any judge about anything sir, so -
663. MR. ZELDIN: Okay.
THE DEPONENT: Okay? There’s no problem there.
BY MR. ZELDIN:
664. Q. So tell me how -
MR. REID: I guess so that means the answer is taking under advisement.
665. MR. ZELDIN: No, the answer – that’s treated as a refusal. Either it’s yes or it’s a big no. And that was a big no.
MR. REIDL: So far.
666. R MR. ZELDIN: Q. So tell me how a man who has no financial records and has no visible means of support was able to acquire a property, or cause a company to acquire a property in the Bahamas for - worth about 800, $900,000.00, or whatever it is?
A. Marcello DeFrancesco was my former lawyer who’s -
667. Q. Mm, hmm.
A. - now working with you and has provided information to you that is – violates my rights, so I refuse to answer.
668. MR. ZELDIN: Okay, subject to the refusals, those are my questions. We’ll order a transcript of that.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcription from the record made by sound recording apparatus, to the best of my skill and ability.


________________________________
Bonnie Bilawey
Certified Court Reporter.

LEGAL REPORTING SERVICES
*** Photostatic copies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid unless they bear the original signature of Bonnie Bilawey, and accordingly are in direct violation of Ontario Regulations 587/91, Courts of Justice Act, January 1, 1990.


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 4/1/2010 6:21:59 PM

By: andrew

Jordan Bionda and his family are all dirt bag rats they deserve to be shipped to a small desolate island somewhere with no food except poison all of the biondas shoudl not live with the rest of society they are a blemish on this good earth


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/30/2010 2:56:14 PM

By: gwkin

el señor,si se puede decir "señor" Jordan Bionda es el ser humano màs despeciable , falso, estafador y mentiroso del mundo, es mentiroso compulsivo y cuando se descubre alguna de sus mentiras ataca a sus victimas injuriàndolas y amenazàndolas !!! NO tiene las tierras que dice tener, son todas mentiras, son todos tìtulos falsos, vive de la inocencia y bondad de las personas , hace años que vive de prestado de una casa a otra hasta que lo terminan echando por estafador y pervertido !! Por favor no caigan màs en sus trampas, repito, NO ES DUEÑO DE NADA, TODO ES FALSO, ES ESTAFADOR Y TIENE ESCRITURAS FALSAS, JAMAS MUESTRA LAS ORIGINALES PORQUE NO LAS TIENE YA QUE SON FALSIFICADAS


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/30/2010 2:28:53 PM

By: gwuielmo

el señor,si se puede decir "señor" Jordan Bionda es el ser humano màs despeciable , falso, estafador y mentiroso del mundo, es mentiroso compulsivo y cuando se descubre alguna de sus mentiras ataca a sus victimas injuriàndolas y amenazàndolas !!! NO tiene las tierras que dice tener, son todas mentiras, son todos tìtulos falsos, vive de la inocencia y bondad de las personas , hace años que vive de prestado de una casa a otra hasta que lo terminan echando por estafador y pervertido !! Por favor no caigan màs en sus trampas, repito, NO ES DUEÑO DE NADA, TODO ES FALSO, ES ESTAFADOR Y TIENE ESCRITURAS FALSAS, JAMAS MUESTRA LAS ORIGINALES PORQUE NO LAS TIENE YA QUE SON FALSIFICADAS


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/24/2009 8:42:55 PM

By: kingdomcapital

i heard that Jordan Bionda has been sued and that whoever sued him got a 2 million dollar judgement in Ontario its in teh Court i will ask a friend who works in the Government of Ontario to verify and will post as soon as i have it I am sure she will be able to get it for me i also heard his whole family got a judgement against them for what they did to us in the IFPA and that he is actually doing this scam this ponzi scheme again and snubbing his nose at the RCMP and that he is doing it in Panama City .....beware everyone


Anonymous
Posted: Saturday, August 13, 2011

Posted: 3/24/2009 8:37:31 PM

By: rexdanny, Quebec

this guy Jordan Bionda is a rat and should be arrested and jailed like Bernie Madoff Jordan Bionda has taken a lot of peoples money look at this he is at it again in Ontario but this time someone has the stones to sue maybe we should all go after him as well

this is the law suit that my PI has unearthed he is looking for more and i am sure he will find more i dont care what it costs me ....TABARNAC he has to pay

make this rat pay and make his children pay too

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE


B E T W E E N:


ELIO MIOTTO, DAVID MIOTTO, 1411187 ONTARIO INC. and 1530495 ONTARIO INC.

Plaintiffs




- and -






JORDAN BIONDA, also known as JORDI BIONDA, also known as JORDY BIONDA, MARCIE MACKESY, also known as MARCIA MACKESY, JOEL BIONDA also known as JOEY BIONDA, WENDY LYNN CAMERON, JOCEYLN ANITA KNOX, KEVIN ALEXANDER KNOX, JASON BIONDA, PRIMA VERDE INC., PRIVATE STRUCTURES CORP., SHOREGATE INVESTMENTS INC., THE GREEN ENVELOPE CORPORATION, SAVVY MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED, 1453991 ONTARIO INC. and CONCENTRA FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION

Defendants



STATEMENT OF CLAIM


TO THE DEFENDANT(S)

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff(s). The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff(s) lawyer(s) or, where the plaintiff(s) do(es) not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff(s), and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.

Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.




DATE: Issued By:
Local Registrar


Address of Court House:

393 University Avenue
10th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1E6
TO:

JORDAN BIONDA, also known as JORDI BIONDA,
also known as JORDY BIONDA
255 Allison's Point Road
Huntsville, Ontario
P1H 1B5

AND TO:

MARCIE MACKESY, also known as MARCIA MACKESY
255 Allison's Point Road
Huntsville, Ontario
P1H 1B5

AND TO:

JOEL BIONDA also known as JOEY BIONDA
R.R. #1
Orillia, Ontario
L3V 6H1

AND TO:

WENDY LYNN CAMERON
R.R. #1
Orillia, Ontario
L3V 6H1

AND TO:

JOCEYLN ANITA KNOX


AND TO:

KEVIN ALEXANDER KNOX


AND TO:

JASON BIONDA
245 Labreche Drive
North Bay, Ontario
P1A 4J6

AND TO:

PRIMA VERDE INC.
c/o Jordan Bionda
255 Allison's Point Road
Huntsville, Ontario
P1H 1B5

AND TO:

PRIVATE STRUCTURES CORP.
c/o Jordan Bionda
255 Allison's Point Road
Huntsville, Ontario
P1H 1B5




AND TO:

SHOREGATE INVESTMENTS INC.
Andaluz Building
El Cangrejo
Apartment 12A
Republic of Panama

AND TO:

THE GREEN ENVELOPE CORPORATION
c/o Jordan Bionda
255 Allison's Point Road
Huntsville, Ontario
P1H 1B5

AND TO:


SAVVY MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED
c/o Jordan Bionda
255 Allison's Point Road
Huntsville, Ontario
P1H 1B5

AND TO:

1453991 ONTARIO INC.
c/o JASON BIONDA
245 Labreche Drive
North Bay, Ontario
P1A 4J6


AND TO:

CONCENTRA FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION
333 Third Avenue
North Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 2M2


CLAIM



1. THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM AS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS OR ANY OF THEM:

(a) Damages for breach of contract in the sum of $3,000,000.00;

(b) In the alternative to (a), damages for conspiracy, collusion, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust in the sum of $3,000,000.00;

(c) Repayment to the Plaintiffs of the sum of $3,000,000.00 advanced to the Defendants;

(d) An accounting by the Defendants of all the Plaintiffs' monies delivered to the Defendants and all profits received therefrom and Judgment to the Plaintiffs accordingly;

(e) An interim and interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants or any of them, their agents or servants from transferring assets out of Ontario without the prior approval of the Court;

(f) An interim and interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from conveying, or encumbering or in any manner alienating their assets save for day to day living expenses save and except on notice to the Plaintiffs and with prior leave of the Court;

(g) An interlocutory Order appointing a receiver and manager of the assets, property and undertakings of the corporate Defendants;

(h) An interim and interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants or any of them from alienating, conveying or in any manner encumbering the lands and premises known as Unit 122, Ocean Club Estates held in the name of the Defendant Shoregate Investments Inc.;

(i) A tracing Order permitting the Plaintiffs to claim title and ownership to all assets in the names of the Defendants, their servants or agents, purchased entirely or in part with funds advanced by the Plaintiffs;

(j) A declaration that the mortgage registered on December 1, 2000 as Instrument No. 464366 on property legally described as the east half of Lot 17, Concession 14 save and except Part 1 on Reference Plan 51R-28815 and part of the east half of Lot 17, Concession 14 Township of Oro-Medonte (formerly Township of Oro) County of Simcoe as previously described in Deed No. RO1433703 and bearing PIN No. 56548-0129 LT in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Simcoe No. 51 at Barrie known municipally as R.R. #1, Orillia, Ontario L3V 6H1 in favour of the Plaintiff 1411187 Ontario Inc. for the principal sum of $275,000.00 is a good, valid, subsisting and binding mortgage and for the payment of the said amount in accordance to its terms by the Defendant Joel Bionda and setting aside the registration of a Discharge of the said mortgage registered on February 8, 2006 as Instrument No. SC410598 as against the aforementioned lands;

(k) An Order that the aforementioned mortgage in favour of 1411187 Ontario Inc. ranks in priority as against the mortgage of the Defendant Concentra Financial Services Association registered on August 11, 2006 as Instrument No. SC466864 as against title to the said lands referred to in paragraph 1(j);

(l) A Certificate of Pending Litigation against title to the real property referred to in paragraph 1(j);

(m) A Declaration that the transfer of the property referred to in paragraph 1(j) from Joel Bionda to Joel Bionda and Wendy Lynn Cameron on August 11, 2006 by Instrument No. SC466863 is a fraudulent conveyance within the meaning of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter F29 and all amendments thereto and specifically Sections 2 and 4;

(n) Possession of the property referred to in paragraph 1(j)

(o) A Certificate of Pending Litigation as against the lands and premises referred to as Unit 122, Ocean Club Estates located on Paradise Island, Bahamas;

(p) Judgment in favour of 1530495 Ontario Inc. in the sum of $50,000.00 for realty tax arrears not paid by the Defendants Jordan Bionda and Marcie Mackesy on 255 Alison's Point Road, Huntsville, Ontario;

(q) A Declaration that the Plaintiffs Elio Miotto and David Miotto are the owners of Unit 122, Ocean Club Estates and a vesting Order with respect to thereto;

(r) Exemplary and punitive damages in the sum of $100,000.00;

(s) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to Sections 128 and 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c. C.43;

(t) Costs of this action on a substantial indemnity basis, together with applicable Goods and Services Tax thereon in accordance with the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 as amended;

(u) Such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court seems just.



2. The Plaintiffs, Elio Miotto ("Elio") and David Miotto ("David") are businessmen residing in the Province of Ontario.

3. The Plaintiff 1411187 Ontario Inc. ("1411187") is a private Ontario corporation with its head office in the City of Vaughan, in the Province of Ontario and was at all relevant times the mortgagee referred to in paragraph 1(j) holding the said mortgage in trust for the Plaintiffs Elio and David.

4. The Plaintiff 1530495 Ontario Inc. ("1530495") is a private Ontario corporation with its head office in the City of Vaughan, in the Province Ontario and was at all relevant times the registered owner of property known municipally as 255 Alison's Point Road, Huntsville, Ontario which property was held in trust for the Plaintiffs David and Elio.

5. The Defendant Jordan Bionda, also known as Jordi Bionda and Jordy Bionda ("Jordan") is an individual residing at 255 Allison's Point Road, in the Town of Huntsville, in the Province of Ontario. Jordan was at all material times an operating mind, director, custodian, fiduciary and Trustee of funds which were provided at his request by each of the Plaintiffs to Jordan or to the remaining Defendants from on or about January 30, 2001 to on or about July 13, 2001.

6. The Defendant Marcie Mackesy also known as Marcia Mackesy ("Marcie") is the spouse of and resides with the Defendant Jordan.

7. The Defendant, Joel Bionda, also known as Joey Bionda ("Joel"), Jordan's brother, is an individual residing in the Town of Orillia, in the Province of Ontario.

8. The Defendant, Wendy Lynn Cameron ("Wendy") is the spouse of and resides with Joel.

9. The Defendant, Jocelyn Anita Knox ("Jocelyn"), Jordan's sister, is an individual residing in the Town of Huntsville, in the Province of Ontario.

10. The Defendant, Kevin Alexander Knox ("Kevin") is a businessman residing in the Town of Huntsville, in the Province of Ontario and is Jocelyn's spouse.

11. The Defendant Jason Bionda ("Jason") is a businessman residing in the Town of North Bay, in the Province of Ontario and is Jordan's brother.

12. The non-corporate Defendants were at all material times the operating minds, directors, custodians, fiduciaries, alter egos and Trustees of the corporate Defendants Prima Verde Inc. ("Prima"), Private Structures Corp. ("Private"), Shoregate Investments Inc. ("Shoregate"), The Green Envelope Corporation ("Green") and Savvy Management Inc. ("Savvy") and/or shared these responsibilities with the other personal Defendants for each of the Defendant Corporations set out herein which in turn received and acted as custodians, Trustees and fiduciaries of various funds that were provided by the Plaintiffs from time to time.

13. In order to facilitate the fraudulent scheme hereinafter referred to the non-corporate Defendants formed the corporations referred to in the preceding paragraph and deposited money raised from the Plaintiffs and from other investors for their fraudulent schemes into several bank accounts operated in the names of Prima, Private, Shoregate and Green. Approximately $2,500,000.00 USD of investors' funds was transferred from Prima's account at Suisse Security Bank in trust in Nassau, Bahamas to other accounts full particulars of which are not known to the Plaintiffs.

14. The Defendant Prima is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas having its head office in Nassau, Bahamas and was at all material times the custodian, Trustee and fiduciary of funds advanced to it from time to time directly and indirectly by the Plaintiffs or any one of them and was at all material times the alter ego of and subservient and responsive to the directions of the non-corporate Defendants utilized by them in an attempt to avoid personal responsibility and to defeat creditors including the Plaintiffs herein.

15. The Defendant Private is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas having its head office in Nassau, Bahamas. Private has at all material times been the custodian, Trustee and fiduciary of funds advanced to it from time to time directly and indirectly by the Plaintiffs or any one of them and was at all material times the alter ego of and subservient and responsive to the directions of the non-corporate Defendants utilized by them in an attempt to avoid personal responsibility and to defeat creditors including the Plaintiffs herein.

16. The Defendant Shoregate is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Republic of Panama having its head office in Panama City, Panama. Shoregate has at all material times been the custodian, Trustee and fiduciary of funds advanced to it from time to time directly and indirectly by the Plaintiffs or any one of them and was at all material times the alter ego of and subservient and responsive to the directions of the non-corporate Defendants utilized by them in an attempt to avoid personal responsibility and to defeat creditors including the Plaintiffs herein. Moreover, the said Shoregate incorporated January 11, 2001 is the registered owner of the lands purchased March 12, 2001 from Paradise Island Limited and referred to as Unit 122, Ocean Clubs Estates, Paradise Island, Bahamas.

17. The Defendant Green is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Republic of Panama having its head office in Panama City, Panama. Green has at all material times been the custodian, Trustee and fiduciary of funds advanced to it from time to time directly and indirectly by the Plaintiffs or any one of them and was at all material times the alter ego of and subservient and responsive to the directions of the non-corporate Defendants utilized by them in an attempt to avoid personal responsibility and to defeat creditors including the Plaintiffs herein.

18. The Defendant Savvy is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario having its head office in the City of Toronto, Ontario. Savvy has at all material times been the custodian, Trustee and fiduciary of funds advanced to it from time to time directly and indirectly by the Plaintiffs or any one of them and was at all material times the alter ego of and subservient and responsive to the directions of the non-corporate Defendants utilized by them in an attempt to avoid personal responsibility and to defeat creditors including the Plaintiffs herein.

19. The Defendant 1453991 Ontario Inc. ("1453991") is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario having its head office in the Town of North Bay, Ontario. 1453991 has at all material times been the custodian, Trustee and fiduciary of funds advanced to it from time to time directly and indirectly by the Plaintiffs or any one of them and was at all material times the alter ego of and subservient and responsive to the directions of the non-corporate Defendants utilized by them in an attempt to avoid personal responsibility and to defeat creditors including the Plaintiffs herein.

20. The Plaintiffs state that named Defendants have at all material times wrongfully conspired together to defraud the Plaintiffs and others of funds advanced through extensive fraudulent misrepresentations and warranties and thereafter to distribute and conceal the said funds, assets secured thereby and to transfer and remove securities provided to the Plaintiffs to secure the Plaintiffs' advances.

21. The Defendant Concentra Financial Services Association ("Concentra") carries on business inter alia in the Province of Saskatchewan and did by mortgage registered August 11, 2006 as Instrument No. SC466864 purport to advance the sum of $180,000.00 to Joel Bionda and Wendy Lynn Cameron as against the lands and premises referred to in paragraph 1(j). The Plaintiffs allege that the advance was made with knowledge of the improper discharge of the pre-existing mortgage in favour of the Plaintiff 1411187 as referred to in paragraph 1(j) and accordingly the Plaintiffs seek priority for such mortgage as against the Concentra mortgage.

22. The Plaintiffs state that in or about the late spring of 2000 they were introduced to Jordan and through Jordan to the remaining Defendants. Over the course of the next several conversations and thereafter in the years following the Plaintiffs' investments, the Plaintiffs were advised as follows:

(a) That Jordan as a result of his personal connections with major European banking institutions such as Barclay's Bank and including UBS in Zurich, Switzerland was raising by syndication with various investors separate blocks of funds each block of which totalled $30,000,000.00 US.

(b) That the Defendants had invested large amounts in similar syndicates in the past.

(c) That the Defendants had always made profits for those fortunate enough to be involved with Jordan and his team (the remaining non-corporate Defendants).

(d) That the funds advanced would be held in trust and would never be used, encumbered, hypothecated, used as security, transferred, moved or dispersed in any way involving risk.

(e) That the funds were being deposited into a European bank account for the purpose of demonstrating the existence of funds in order to obtain the ability to trade.

(f) That the Defendants had connections in investment banking in Europe with individuals who had impeccable qualifications and would make investments on the basis of maximum returns and would properly account for funds and profits to the Plaintiffs and to other members of the syndicates as beneficiaries.

(g) That the investors' fund would be used to purchase and trade discounted financial instruments issued by prime banks.

(h) That such highly profitable trading occurs in little known trading markets where a select few traders buy and sell deeply discounted instruments through a series of pre-arranged trades.

(i) That profits from this trading were guaranteed because these traders did not purchase the discounted financial instruments until they had pre-arranged a sale transaction on a profitable basis.

(j) That these traders and the Defendants prohibited the Plaintiffs from discussing or promoting this investment and from commenting on same to others to protect the highly sensitive proprietary and confidential banking and trade relationships which generated the significant profits being realized.

(k) That the traders were able to provide attractive returns to investors including the Plaintiffs because they were earning profits of 1000 to 2000 percent per year.

(l) That the Defendants had made millions for themselves by investing in these high yield investment programs.

(m) That the funds would earn substantial profits on a quarterly basis commencing on or about April, 2002 and every quarter thereafter until December, 2004.

(n) That funds were invested for a period of 3 years.

(o) That the Defendants would guarantee the security of any funds advanced and provide security to guarantee the return of all funds and profits.

(p) That in the event the investment and profits were not returned within 120 days of December 17, 2004 the properties and assets which would be pledged as security could be sold by the secured parties with the complete co-operation of the personal Defendants.


23. The Plaintiffs state that on the basis of the above representations they did from January, 2001 through July, 2002 advance to Jordan and/or to the remaining Defendants in accordance with their specific instructions the sum of $1,161,000.00 USD.

24. The Plaintiffs Elio and David state that in addition they advanced further sums of $65,000.00 USD towards the maintenance and upkeep of the Paradise Island, Bahamas lot to be referred to hereafter as well as further sums of $10,000.00 for travel to Panama, Switzerland and Paradise Island all arising out of the course of business dealings with the Defendants.

25. Elio and David state further that at the request of the Defendants they advanced the following sums in Canadian dollars:

(a) Payment to Marcie of the sum of $14,000.00;

(b) Payment of a portion of the rent and utility payments on business premises shared with the Plaintiffs located at 200 Edgeley Road being $13,447.31.

26. The Plaintiffs state that from June 26, 2002 the Defendants Jordan and Marcie have resided in property known municipally as 255 Allison's Point Road, Huntsville, Ontario P1H 1B5 which property is registered in the name of the Plaintiff 1530495 which corporation holds the property as nominee for the Plaintiffs Elio and David. Pursuant to a lease agreement with the Defendants Jordan and Marcie, they were to pay 1530495 rent of $2,000.00 per month as well as paying realty taxes, utilities and insurance. These Defendants have defaulted on rent payments and accordingly 1530495 has instituted collateral proceedings for possession and Judgment. Jordan and Marcie have also failed to pay in accordance with the agreement realty taxes to the Town of Huntsville for a number of years with arrears to February 28, 2007 totalling $40,826.97 which amount is sought herein.

27. The Plaintiffs state that in return for the advance of $1,161,000.00 USD as referred to in paragraph 23 the Defendants provided the following security:

(a) The Transfer of a vacant lot in Paradise Island, Bahamas being legally described as Unit 122, Ocean Club Estates;

(b) The delivery of a General Security Agreement dated December, 2000 from 1453991 Ontario Inc. an aviation company owned by the Defendant Jason to 1411187 securing the sum of $50,000.00 with interest accruing thereon at the rate of 9.5% per annum from . No payments whatsoever have been made by 1453991 Ontario Inc.

(c) A Charge in the amount of $275,000.00 on lands then owned by the Defendant Joel referred to in paragraph 1(j) in favour of Plaintiff 1411187 as mortgagee which mortgage provided for the payment of interest at 7% per annum calculated half-yearly not in advance with monthly payments of $1,926.16 commencing January 1, 2001 and the balance outstanding due December 1, 2005. The said mortgage went in default in April 1, 2002 at which time the principal outstanding was $269,804.27 with interest to accrue at the aforementioned rate to the date of payment.

28. The Plaintiffs state that subsequent to the Plaintiffs' advances the Defendants engaged in a lengthy history of false promises, detailed illusory descriptions of re-investments and of anticipated profitable payouts in order to forestall the Plaintiffs from moving to enforce their securities. Notwithstanding the aforementioned the Plaintiffs have received no repayment whatsoever nor have they received any accounting or any information as to the utilization of their funds notwithstanding numerous requests.

29. The Plaintiffs state that all of the aforementioned representations and warranties were at all times false, deceptive, misleading, exaggerated and reckless and were made without regard to the truth for the purposes of misleading the Plaintiffs and inducing them to advance funds as they have.

30. The Plaintiffs state that although ownership of the Bahamian lot was to transferred to the Plaintiffs by the assignment of 100% of the shares of Shoregate, the registered owner of the lot to the Plaintiffs' agent Marcello Di Francesco on or about January 17, 2001, the Plaintiffs only received a General Power of Attorney for Shoregate naming Marcello Di Francesco for a period of three years dated January 17, 2001.

31. The Plaintiffs state that in or about January, 2006 they were advised by Jordan that he had unilaterally cancelled the shares issued in favour of Marcello Di Francesco and re-issued same in favour of the Defendant Marcie. In response to the Plaintiffs' request that this unilateral and unlawful cancellation of the security be reversed, the Defendants advised that they would execute a new Power of Attorney and issue new shares to the Plaintiff Elio in return for a discharge of the mortgage referred to in paragraph 1(j) hereof. Accordingly, and with reluctance the Plaintiffs agreed and Elio and Jordan travelled to Panama in February, 2006 to meet with Jordan's lawyer. In Panama Jordan indicated that the shares would be conveyed and particulars as to the profits of the syndicate and the dates when same would be forthcoming would only be delivered following the registration of the discharge of said mortgage. Accordingly, Elio instructed his agent to register a Discharge of the said mortgage on February 8, 2006 as Instrument No. SC410598 as against the lands described in paragraph 1(j).

32. The Plaintiffs state that contrary to Jordan's representations he did on or about February 9, 2006 deliver to Elio a Share Certificate for only 50% of the shares of Shoregate, the remaining 50% being retained by the Defendant Marcie and a limited Power of Attorney for period of 1 year expiring February 8, 2007. At that time Jordan advised Elio that neither he nor any other Defendant would disclose information about the profits of the syndication, that the Plaintiffs ought to consider themselves no longer involved in or entitled to any profits and that if the Plaintiffs wished to own the entire lot in the Bahamas they would have to buy the balance from the Defendant Marcie for $450,000.00.

33. The Plaintiffs state that on or about August 11, 2006 Joel conveyed ownership to the lands formerly mortgaged in favour of 1411187 as referred to in paragraph 1(j) from himself to himself and his wife Wendy for $2.00 and natural love and affection by transfer registered that date as Instrument No. SC466863. On that same day Joel and Wendy purported to mortgage the said lands in favour of the Defendant Concentra in the sum of $180,000.00 by mortgage registered as Instrument No. SC466864.

34. The Plaintiffs state that the conveyance and the subsequent mortgage were entered into for the specific purpose of depriving the Plaintiffs of their security for funds advanced.

35. The Plaintiffs state that the Discharge of the Plaintiff's mortgage as against the lands referred to in paragraph 1(j) was induced by fraud and accordingly submit that this Court:

(a) Declare that the said lands and premises remain as security for 275000 of the funds advanced together with accrued interest; and,

(b) Vacate the registration of the Discharge of the said mortgage;

(c) Declare that the said mortgage and/or security interest of the Plaintiffs takes priority to the interest of the Defendants Concentra and Wendy.

36. The Plaintiffs state that the non-corporate Defendants engaged in business as brokers or dealers by inducing the purchase and sale of securities through the syndicate. The Plaintiffs state that none of the Defendants were registered with any government authority as brokers or dealers and were not associated with any broker or dealer and that the investments the Defendants purported to pursue constitute the sale of securities as that term is defined in the Securities Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter S5.

37. The Plaintiffs state further that no registration statements, proxies or circulars have been filed with the Ontario Securities Commission with respect to the securities sold, endorsed or marketed by the Defendants.

38. The Plaintiffs state further that since the date of advance of funds to the Defendants in US dollars the exchange rate has altered to the detriment of the Plaintiffs and accordingly claim from the Defendants a sum in Canadian dollars equivalent to the cost of purchasing US dollars on the dates that funds were advanced.

39. The corporate Defendants Prima, Private, Shoregate, Green and Savvy are served outside of Ontario without Court Order pursuant to the provisions of the Rules 17.02(f), (g), (h) and (o).

40. The Plaintiffs propose that this action be tried at the City of Toronto.


ROY WISE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Barrister and Solicitor
40 Scollard Street
Suite 201
Toronto, Ontario
M5R 3S1

Telephone: (416) 866-4144
Facsimile: (416) 866-7946
LSUC #13237U 1A

Solicitor for the Plaintiffs


 

Jump to different Forum... 

We hunt for red flags in high-value, cross-border finance by monitoring offshore and onshore courts, regulatory actions, offering documents, and other sources - and email you the results.

View Recent Digests

Cayman Court Secrecy: A Huge Red Flag for Foreign Investors & Clients
David Marchant
As any fule kno, the biggest enemy of fraud, corruption, money laundering, and other forms of financial crime is transparency, while their best friend is secrecy. That's why the unprecedented mass sealing of cases that's taking place at the Financial Services Division of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands is repugnant to anyone with a genuine concern for financial crime.