Miragliotta v. Zanette

Miragliotta v. Zanette

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge’s factual findings that the respondents had a September 2014 lending commitment and that the injunction delayed refinancing (causing increased interest costs and amendment fees), and his interpretation and application of the 2010 consent order to quantify...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2021 ONCA 764
Parties
Plaintiffs (appellants): Amelia Miragliotta and Francesco Di Nardo; Defendants (respondents): Mark Zanette, Stephen Zanette, and Randy Zanette
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trial judge’s findings and awards upheld; respondents awarded costs of appeal
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Undertaking as to Damages, Mitigation, Refinancing and Interest Differentials, Enforcement of Court Order
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Property Law Equitable Remedies Contract Law Injunctions Undertaking as to Damages Mitigation Refinancing and Interest Differentials +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amelia Miragliotta and Francesco Di Nardo

Plaintiffs (appellants)

Mark Zanette, Stephen Zanette, and Randy Zanette

Defendants (respondents)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were liable for damages flowing from their undertaking on an interim injunction and the quantum of those damages
  2. 2 Whether appellants were entitled to recover specified expenditures for performing work the respondents were obliged to complete under a 2010 court order and the quantum of that recovery
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in causation findings linking the injunction to refinancing losses and in assessing mitigation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge’s factual findings that the respondents had a September 2014 lending commitment and that the injunction delayed refinancing (causing increased interest costs and amendment fees), and his interpretation and application of the 2010 consent order to quantify expenditures, were not palpably and overridingly erroneous; therefore the awards and disallowances below were upheld and the respondents were awarded costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trial judge’s findings and awards upheld; respondents awarded costs of appeal

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondents awarded damages for refinancing/interest differentials of $30,289.58