Singh v. Saini

Singh v. Saini

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants could not contradict concessions they made before the motion judge and the uncontradicted evidence that the debt exceeded the promissory note by $54,000 provided a proper basis for the motion judge's order; accordingly the motion judge's decision stands and costs were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 ONCA 26
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Tara Singh; Defendant (appellant): Manjit Singh Saini; Defendant (appellant): Mass Properties Inc.; Plaintiff by Counterclaim (appellant by Counterclaim): Manjit Singh Saini; Plaintiff by Counterclaim (appellant by Counterclaim): Mass Properties Inc.; Plaintiff by Counterclaim (appellant by Counterclaim): Mass Banquet Halls Inc.; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent by Counterclaim): Tara Singh; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent by Counterclaim): Charanjit Singh; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent by Counterclaim): Gurpal Singh Saini also known as Paul Saini
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Motion Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Security for Costs, Costs Order, Appeal Dismissal
Source Language
english
Civil Contract Costs Promissory Note Security for Costs Costs Order Appeal Dismissal

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tara Singh

Plaintiff (respondent)

Manjit Singh Saini

Defendant (appellant)

Mass Properties Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

Manjit Singh Saini

Plaintiff by Counterclaim (appellant by Counterclaim)

Mass Properties Inc.

Plaintiff by Counterclaim (appellant by Counterclaim)

Mass Banquet Halls Inc.

Plaintiff by Counterclaim (appellant by Counterclaim)

Tara Singh

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent by Counterclaim)

Charanjit Singh

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent by Counterclaim)

Gurpal Singh Saini also known as Paul Saini

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Motion Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants may contradict concessions made before the motion judge on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the promissory note and uncontradicted evidence showing the debt exceeded the note by $54,000 provided a valid basis for the motion judge's order
  3. 3 Proper allocation of costs and whether costs can be paid out of funds held in court as security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants could not contradict concessions they made before the motion judge and the uncontradicted evidence that the debt exceeded the promissory note by $54,000 provided a proper basis for the motion judge's order; accordingly the motion judge's decision stands and costs were awarded to the respondent payable from the funds held in court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondent in the amount of $8,961.50 inclusive of disbursements and GST.