Maa Diners Inc. v. 3 for 1 Pizza & Wings (Canada) Inc.

Maa Diners Inc. v. 3 for 1 Pizza & Wings (Canada) Inc.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in deciding the contested issues on the merits: her findings that the three corporate appellants were essentially a single entity, that the required disclosure document had not been provided, and that the respondents did not damage or remove property are amply supported by the record and not open to reversal on appeal.

Citation
C40178
Parties
Applicant (respondent on Appeal): MAA Diners Inc.; Applicant (respondent on Appeal): Karamjit Gill; Applicant (respondent on Appeal): Mamta Patel; Respondent (appellant on Appeal): 3 for 1 Pizza & Wings (Canada) Inc.; Respondent (appellant on Appeal): Triple Pizza (Holdings) Inc.; Respondent (appellant on Appeal): Triple 3 Holdings Inc.; Respondent (appellant on Appeal): Reza Solhi
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision (hearing and Endorsement)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Collection, Disclosure Obligations, Corporate Attribution / Piercing the Corporate Veil, Damages and Theft Assertions, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Collection Disclosure Obligations Corporate Attribution / Piercing the Corporate Veil Damages and Theft Assertions Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAA Diners Inc.

Applicant (respondent on Appeal)

Karamjit Gill

Applicant (respondent on Appeal)

Mamta Patel

Applicant (respondent on Appeal)

3 for 1 Pizza & Wings (Canada) Inc.

Respondent (appellant on Appeal)

Triple Pizza (Holdings) Inc.

Respondent (appellant on Appeal)

Triple 3 Holdings Inc.

Respondent (appellant on Appeal)

Reza Solhi

Respondent (appellant on Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision (hearing and Endorsement)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the three corporate appellants constituted a single economic/entity for liability purposes
  2. 2 Whether the required disclosure document was provided to the respondents
  3. 3 Whether the respondents damaged the premises or removed/stole equipment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in deciding the contested issues on the merits: her findings that the three corporate appellants were essentially a single entity, that the required disclosure document had not been provided, and that the respondents did not damage or remove property are amply supported by the record and not open to reversal on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $4,706.48 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements