Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Respondents sought a sequencing order to have their notice to strike heard before the main petition, arguing the petition constitutes an abuse of process and is covered by a prior settlement agreement

• High evidentiary threshold exists for striking a proceeding as an abuse of process, which respondents failed to meet based on the court's assessment

• Settlement agreement from the prior Stancor litigation and the scope of its release provisions became central to determining whether the current petition relitigates resolved disputes

• Temporal distinction emerged between pre-settlement events (which are material facts) and post-settlement events (which form the basis of the current petition)

• Judicial economy and cost considerations favored consolidating the strike application with the main petition hearing rather than bifurcating proceedings

• Respondents' pattern of delay tactics, including failure to file response materials months after the petition's March 2025 filing, influenced the court's decision to expedite proceedings

Facts and Outcome of the Case

Background and business relationship

446385 B.C. Ltd. and Roberto Fiorvento initiated proceedings against Dolomite Ventures Ltd., Romiro Holdings Ltd., Norfolk Ventures Ltd., Eiffel Investments Ltd., Stancor Investments Ltd., 362524 B.C. Ltd., Pier Michele De Lazzari, Robert Michael De Lazzari, and Norman Stevenson in the British Columbia Supreme Court. The dispute stems from a long-standing business and personal relationship between Roberto Fiorvento and Michael De Lazzari that began in the early 1990s. Between 1993 and 2015, the two invested in commercial real estate together, with De Lazzari's sons and friends participating in various real estate ventures over the years.

The deteriorating relationship and prior settlement

In late 2016, the relationship between Fiorvento and De Lazzari deteriorated following a business deal involving one of their holding companies, Stancor Enterprises. This dispute led to litigation that was ultimately resolved through a settlement agreement. Following the Stancor litigation, both parties expressed a desire to separate their interests in the three remaining holding companies: Dolomite Ventures Ltd., Romiro Holdings Ltd., and Norfolk Ventures Ltd. Although they attempted to achieve this separation through both the settlement agreement from the Stancor action and mediation in June 2024, these efforts proved unsuccessful. The two estranged partners remained entangled in business ventures, with Fiorvento seeking to exit the partnerships.

The current petition

The petitioners filed a petition in March 2025 seeking to dissolve the remaining holding companies under section 324 of the Business Corporations Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 57. The respondents, however, sought a sequencing order declaring that their notice to strike should be heard before the petition proceeded. This interlocutory application became the subject of the court's decision.

Arguments on the sequencing application

The respondents contended that the petition constituted an abuse of process because the petitioners were attempting to relitigate disputes from the previous Stancor litigation. According to the respondents, the subject matter of the petition was covered by the settlement agreement reached in that earlier action, and the petition and supporting affidavits were protected by settlement privilege. The respondents argued that separating the strike application from the main petition would be appropriate given the potential to dispose of the entire proceeding through a successful strike application.

The petitioners countered that the strike application lacked merit. They argued that the petition did not relitigate the issues in the Stancor litigation and did not fall within the scope of matters specified in the release provisions of the settlement agreement. Critically, the petitioners emphasized that while circumstances existing prior to January 9, 2024 were material facts for consideration, the petition concerned a legal action taken in respect of events occurring after the effective date of the settlement agreement. The petitioners also characterized the sequencing application as yet another delay tactic by the respondents, pointing out that the petition had been filed in March 2025 and the respondents had yet to file a response.

The court's legal analysis

The court acknowledged that it possesses inherent jurisdiction to control its process, including through sequencing applications. The court referenced principles from class action litigation that were applicable to other proceeding types. These principles included consideration of whether a preliminary application might dispose of the whole proceeding or narrow issues, the cost to parties, potential for delay, and the interests of economy and judicial efficiency.

In analyzing the respondents' strike application, the court identified that the respondents faced a very high evidentiary bar. To succeed on a strike application, they would need to demonstrate that it was plain and obvious that the proceeding constituted an abuse of process. Based on the submissions presented, the court found there was little likelihood the respondents would succeed on this ground. Additionally, the court determined that a detailed application to strike would require extensive review of the evidence supporting the petition and would essentially amount to a hearing of the petition itself. Proceeding with a separate strike application would therefore duplicate efforts and expense, potentially requiring the same issues to be argued before two different judges.

The court's decision

The court sided with the petitioners. It dismissed the respondents' sequencing application, rejecting their request to have the strike application heard separately. The court ordered that the respondents file their materials in response to the petition by November 26, 2025. Additionally, the court awarded costs to the petitioners in any event of the cause, a decision reflecting the court's view that the respondents' sequencing application lacked merit and represented an attempt to delay the proceedings further. By consolidating the strike application with the main petition hearing, the court prioritized judicial efficiency and protected the petitioners from bearing duplicative costs.