1117322 Ontario Inc, v. Telus Corporation
The appeal is dismissed because the motion judge correctly applied res judicata/estoppel: the second action arises from the same business relationship and asserts claims that could have been brought in the earlier Small Claims Court action; the purported fairness basis and difference in amounts were insufficient to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 ONCA 262
- Parties
- Appellant: 1117322 Ontario Inc.; Appellant: Joseph O’Regan; Respondent: Telus Corporation
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 April 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge Order of the Superior Court of Justice Dated October 6, 2009
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Proper Pleading of Charter Claims, Appellate Review of Motions, Costs Assessment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
1117322 Ontario Inc.
Appellant
Joseph O’Regan
Appellant
Telus Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge Order of the Superior Court of Justice Dated October 6, 2009
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether res judicata/estoppel bars the second action given the prior Small Claims Court judgment
- 2 Whether fairness or amount of damages justifies an exception to res judicata
- 3 Whether Becamon v. Wawanesa is applicable
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the motion judge correctly applied res judicata/estoppel: the second action arises from the same business relationship and asserts claims that could have been brought in the earlier Small Claims Court action; the purported fairness basis and difference in amounts were insufficient to defeat estoppel, the cited precedent was inapplicable, and the Charter claims were not properly pleaded.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs to respondent fixed at $2,000 inclusive if so sought by the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1117322 Ontario Inc, v. Telus Corporation Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-04-13 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 262 Docket numbers C51252 Judges Gillese, Eileen E.; Lang, Susan Elizabeth; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: 1117322 Ontario Inc, v. Telus Corporation, 2010 ONCA 262 DATE: 20100409 DOCKET: C51252 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Gillese, Lang and Rouleau JJ.A. BETWEEN: 1117322 Ontario Inc. and Joseph O’Regan Appellants and Telus Corporation Respondent Joseph O’Regan, appellant appearing in person and on behalf of 1117322 Ontario Inc. Jaimie Lickers, for the respondent Heard: April 8, 2010 On appeal from the order of Justice Heidi Polowin of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 6, 2009. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Mr. O’Regan argues that fairness considerations are such that the doctrine of res judicata ought not to apply in the circumstances of this case. He points to the fact that he sought only a small sum for damages in the Small Claims Court action. In that action, he recovered damages for approximately $6,000. In the present action, he seeks millions of dollars. He also complains that fairness considerations flow from the amount of time and money he has spent pursuing this second action. [2] The motion judge was fully alive to these considerations. Nonetheless, as she noted, both claims arise out of the same business relationship and estoppel bars claims which might properly have been brought in the first action. Further, as she noted, the Charter claims in the second action are not well-formed. [3] We accept the respondent’s arguments as to why Becamon v. Wawanesa Mutual Ins. Co., 2009 ONCA 113 (CanLII), is of no assistance to the appellant. In Becamon, the proceedings were different and so too were the roles of the parties. There, the young driver pled guilty to Highway Traffic Act offences and wanted to defend fully a subsequent civil action. Here, the appellants were the plaintiffs in both actions. [4] The motion judge applied the correct legal principles. She fully, fairly and carefully considered all aspects of the actions and the arguments presented by the parties. We see no basis on which to interfere with her decisions. [5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $2,000, all inclusive, if so sought by the respondent.