Emcea Transport Inc. v. Rhode Logistics International Inc.

Emcea Transport Inc. v. Rhode Logistics International Inc.

The motions judge did not err: the parties' intention was that appellant would be liable when it requested bills be sent to it, all relevant evidence was before the motions judge supporting summary judgment, and there was no basis for appellate interference with the costs award.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C39139
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Emcea Transport Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Rhodie Logistics International Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Titan Plastics Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Wollin Canada Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Wollin Products Inc.; Third Party: Black Eagle Engineering Ltd.; Third Party: Andrew T. Choly
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Costs, Appeal, Intention of Parties, Third‑party Liability
Source Language
english
Civil Contract Collections Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Costs Appeal Intention of Parties +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emcea Transport Inc.

Plaintiff/respondent

Rhodie Logistics International Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Titan Plastics Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Wollin Canada Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Wollin Products Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Black Eagle Engineering Ltd.

Third Party

Andrew T. Choly

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motions judge erred in granting summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was liable to pay bills sent to it directly pursuant to the parties' intention
  3. 3 Whether all relevant evidence was before the motions judge

Ratio Decidendi

The motions judge did not err: the parties' intention was that appellant would be liable when it requested bills be sent to it, all relevant evidence was before the motions judge supporting summary judgment, and there was no basis for appellate interference with the costs award.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed in the amount of $3,000 all inclusive.