1473587 Ontario Inc. v. Jackson
The affidavits failed to show the respondents led Mr. Morrow to believe Mr. Ronald could bind them; the motion judge properly found Mr. Morrow knew the 'O.K.' was not binding and therefore correctly granted summary judgment for the respondents, so the appeal failed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C43272
- Parties
- Appellant: 1473587 Ontario Inc.; Appellant: Loblaw Properties Limited; Respondent: Eleanor Jean Jackson; Respondent: Robert Ronald; Respondent: Bryon Ronald; Respondent: Ronald Weatherhead; Respondent: Camiel Terrebroodt Jr.; Respondent: 1499653 Ontario Ltd.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 26 July 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Collection / Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; summary judgment awarded to respondents
- Legal Topics
- Agreement of Purchase and Sale, Summary Judgment, Oral Modification, Agency, Waiver, Costs
- 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
1473587 Ontario Inc.
Appellant
Loblaw Properties Limited
Appellant
Eleanor Jean Jackson
Respondent
Robert Ronald
Respondent
Bryon Ronald
Respondent
Ronald Weatherhead
Respondent
Camiel Terrebroodt Jr.
Respondent
1499653 Ontario Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate to enforce or dismiss the Agreement of Purchase and Sale
- 2 Whether an oral statement by Mr. Ronald could bind the respondents to amend the agreement, waive rights or make an election under the agreement
- 3 Whether Mr. Morrow was led to believe Mr. Ronald had authority to bind the respondents
Ratio Decidendi
The affidavits failed to show the respondents led Mr. Morrow to believe Mr. Ronald could bind them; the motion judge properly found Mr. Morrow knew the 'O.K.' was not binding and therefore correctly granted summary judgment for the respondents, so the appeal failed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment awarded to respondents
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to the respondents of $10,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1473587 Ontario Inc. v. Jackson Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-07-26 Docket numbers C43272 Judges Feldman, Kathryn N.; Gillese, Eileen E.; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20050726 DOCKET: C43272 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: 1473587 ONTARIO INC. AND LOBLAW PROPERTIES LIMITED (Plaintiffs/Appellants) v. ELEANOR JEAN JACKSON, ROBERT RONALD, BRYON RONALD, RONALD WEATHERHEAD, AND CAMIEL TERREBROODT JR. AND 1499653 ONTARIO LTD. (Defendants/Respondents) BEFORE: FELDMAN, GILLESE AND LaFORME JJ.A. COUNSEL: Robert Horst and Domenico Magisano for the appellants W. H. P. Madorin for the personal respondents Irving Marks for the respondent 1499653 Ontario Ltd. HEARD & ENDORSED: July 22, 2005 On appeal from the decision of Justice Rutherford dated February 21, 2005. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Both parties sought summary judgment either enforcing or dismissing the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. The motion judge was entitled to take a hard look at the evidence placed before him. [2] The affidavits of Mr. Morrow do not say that the respondents led him to believe that Mr. Ronald could orally bind the respondents to agree to an amendment of the Agreement, to a waiver of rights or to an election under the agreement. [3] The trial judge was therefore entitled to find that Mr. Morrow was aware that Mr. Ronald’s comment of “O.K.”, was not binding in law on the respondents, and to therefore, award summary judgment. As a result, the appeal must fail. Costs to the respondents of $10,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.