Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• This case arises from a real estate partnership dispute between brothers Michael Pupi and Greg Pupi, whose partnership, G & M Property Managers, began in the 1980s.
• Central to the litigation is whether the Defendants complied with RSJ Sweeny's December 4, 2022 endorsement ordering production of financial and corporate documents.
• Michael contends the documents are necessary for his retained expert to prepare a proper responding report on the issue of damages.
• Competing interpretations of the Endorsement's scope have prolonged the disclosure dispute, complicated by the failure to take out a formal order at the time.
• Greg's personal income tax returns were ordered produced; however, production of Anna Maria Pupi's returns was declined on the material before the court.
• The Defendants' motion to compel Michael's outstanding undertakings was dismissed as res judicata, as the identical relief had already been ordered by Justice Milanetti.

Facts of the case

This action arises from a business partnership between two brothers, Michele Pupi (known as Michael) and Gregorio Pupi (known as Greg), which began sometime in the 1980s. Their partnership, G & M Property Managers, was engaged in real estate investment and property management. Michael alleges that Greg controlled the partnership's finances and property purchases, while Michael primarily managed the properties without involvement in financial matters. The brothers had a falling out in 2016, prompting Michael to commence this action seeking, among other things, a declaration of 50% ownership in certain properties, damages, an injunction restraining the Defendants from any conduct in respect of the properties, and an accounting. The claim was amended in 2022 to add additional parties and properties.

Key orders and clauses at issue

Central to the dispute is the endorsement issued by RSJ Sweeny on December 4, 2022 (the "Endorsement"), which directed the Defendants to produce certain financial documents. Critically, no formal order was taken out at that time, leaving the parties with differing interpretations of its scope. The Endorsement required Greg to write to banks and request records as far back as available, including credit card statements, and directed the Defendants' accountant, Bogdan Antoniu, to check for and produce additional documents beyond those already provided. Paragraph 20 of the Endorsement further stated that T2125 forms from the partnership reflecting income received by Michael and Greg must be disclosed, and that if T2125s are unavailable, income tax returns would be relevant and must be produced instead.

Reasoning and analysis

Associate Justice Kriwetz heard two cross-motions on April 20, 2026. On Michael's motion, the court found that the Pupi Defendants had not displaced their ongoing obligation under rule 30.07 to produce relevant documents that come into their possession, power, or control. The court accepted that documents post-dating the Endorsement fell within the scope of Greg's undertaking to provide a full accounting of the partnership. With respect to G & M, Bella Homes Inc., Brick-It Masonry Inc., and Purigan Masonry Ltd. documents, the court ordered production in each instance, finding either that the documents were available and their relevance was not disputed, or that the Defendants were in a position to obtain them through their accountant, Mr. Antoniu. On the income tax returns, the court declined to order production of Anna Maria Pupi's returns, finding no specific reference to Anna in the Endorsement and noting that the pleadings — which were not before the court — would be needed to assess relevance. As Greg's T2125 forms were unavailable, the court ordered him to produce his personal income tax returns for the period specified in the Esposto Affidavit. On the Defendants' motion, the court dismissed the request for a further order compelling Michael to answer outstanding undertakings previously ordered by Justice Milanetti, holding the issue to be res judicata. The court also found insufficient material to determine whether lease documents relating to 555 Seaman Avenue, Hamilton, Ontario should be produced, and declined to make an order on that issue, granting the Defendants leave to bring the motion again with further materials.

Ruling and overall outcome

Michael was substantially successful on the Plaintiff's Motion. The court ordered the Pupi Defendants to produce documents across multiple categories — covering G & M, Bella Homes Inc., Brick-It Masonry Inc., and Purigan Masonry Ltd. — as well as Greg's personal income tax returns, all within 30 days of the release of the endorsement. The Defendants' motion was dismissed in its substantive relief, with the court finding the undertakings issue already resolved by a prior order. Costs of the motion and cross-motion were not determined in the endorsement; the parties were directed to submit cost outlines and written submissions of no more than three pages within seven days if they could not agree. No specific monetary amount was awarded in this endorsement.