1599669 Ontario Inc. (Springlakes.ca.inc.) v. 1617798 Ontario Inc.
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge acted within the limited authority of former Rule 20 to make findings necessary to determine whether a genuine issue for trial existed, and her approach was supported by the record and the authority in Rozin v. Ilitchev.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 531
- Parties
- Appellant: 1599669 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Springlakes.ca.inc.; Appellant: Stephen Smith; Respondent: 1617798 Ontario Inc.; Respondent: 746874 Ontario Ltd. carrying on business as Rosten Investments Inc.; Respondent: 1096508 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as JJ Barnicke London Windsor Sarnia Ltd.; Respondent: Vince De Rosa; Respondent: Gordon Laschinger
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 July 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge Decision Under Former Rule 20
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.
- Legal Topics
- Rule 20, Genuine Issue for Trial, Findings of Fact and Credibility, Standard of Review, Costs Award
- 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
1599669 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Springlakes.ca.inc.
Appellant
Stephen Smith
Appellant
1617798 Ontario Inc.
Respondent
746874 Ontario Ltd. carrying on business as Rosten Investments Inc.
Respondent
1096508 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as JJ Barnicke London Windsor Sarnia Ltd.
Respondent
Vince De Rosa
Respondent
Gordon Laschinger
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge Decision Under Former Rule 20
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge exceeded the bounds of former Rule 20 by making findings of fact and credibility
- 2 Whether there was a genuine issue for trial
- 3 Whether the costs award was appropriate
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge acted within the limited authority of former Rule 20 to make findings necessary to determine whether a genuine issue for trial existed, and her approach was supported by the record and the authority in Rozin v. Ilitchev.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to the respondents in the amount of $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1599669 Ontario Inc. (Springlakes.ca.inc.) v. 1617798 Ontario Inc. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-07-21 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 531 Docket numbers C53331 Judges Doherty, David H.; Laskin, John Ivan; Simmons, Janet M. Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: 1599669 Ontario Inc. (Springlakes.ca.inc.) v. 1617798 Ontario Inc., 2011 ONCA 531 DATE: 20110720 DOCKET: C53331 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Doherty, Laskin and Simmons JJ.A. BETWEEN 1599669 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Springlakes.ca.inc. and Stephen Smith Plaintiffs (Appellants) and 1617798 Ontario Inc., 746874 Ontario Ltd. carrying on business as Rosten Investments Inc., 1096508 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as JJ Barnicke London Windsor Sarnia Ltd., Vince De Rosa and Gordon Laschinger Defendants (Respondents) Darren J. Smith, for the plaintiffs (appellants) Judy Hamilton, for the defendants (respondents) Heard: July 14, 2011 On appeal from the judgment of Justice J.E. Kelly of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 13, 2008. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant advanced one submission in oral argument. He contends that the motion judge went beyond the bounds of the former Rule 20 and made findings of fact and credibility determinations. [2] We disagree. Even under the former Rule 20, motion judges had a limited power to make findings in the context of determining whether there was a genuine issue for trial. We are not convinced that the motion judge went beyond that power given the material that was before her. Her use of the former Rule 20 finds support in Rozin v. Ilitchev (2003), 66 O.R. (3d) 410 at para. 9. [3] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondents in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.