Colasanti v. 1808278 Ontario Inc.

Colasanti v. 1808278 Ontario Inc.

The transfer of the water allocation produced an immediate, valuable benefit to the appellant (enabling the building permit) and thus constituted valid consideration for the promissory note; the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings and declined to decide collateral legal questions about title or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 ONCA 96
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Richard R. Colasanti; James A. Colasanti; W. Kelly Colasanti; Tracy Jo Lee Gitke, Trustees of the estate of Ronald Colasanti, deceased; Appellant (defendant): 1808278 Ontario Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Consideration, Building Permit, Water Allocation
Source Language
english
Civil Contract Property Promissory Note Consideration Building Permit Water Allocation

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

Parties

Richard R. Colasanti; James A. Colasanti; W. Kelly Colasanti; Tracy Jo Lee Gitke, Trustees of the estate of Ronald Colasanti, deceased

Respondent (plaintiff)

1808278 Ontario Inc.

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignment/transfer of a water allocation constituted valid consideration for the promissory note
  2. 2 Whether the promissory note was void for failure of consideration because the transferor lacked legal title to the water allocation
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in finding consideration and in crediting the respondent's evidence despite disputes about ownership and municipal permitting

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer of the water allocation produced an immediate, valuable benefit to the appellant (enabling the building permit) and thus constituted valid consideration for the promissory note; the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings and declined to decide collateral legal questions about title or municipal law that were not properly before the court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent in the amount of $13,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST