Baywood Homes Partnership v. Haditaghi

Baywood Homes Partnership v. Haditaghi

The appeal is allowed and the summary judgment is set aside because the motions judge erred in principle by adjudicating the Third Release summarily while referring the closely related promissory notes to trial without properly assessing the appropriateness of a staged summary process in the context of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 ONCA 450
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Baywood Homes Partnership; Plaintiff (appellant): 2131059 Ontario Limited; Plaintiff (appellant): 2206659 Ontario Limited; Plaintiff (appellant): 1367169 Ontario Limited; Plaintiff (appellant): Ralph Canonaco; Defendant (respondent): Alex Haditaghi (also known as Alex Vahid Haditaghi; Vahid Haditaghi); Defendant (respondent): Majid Haditaghi (also known as Michael Haditaghi; Mark Haditaghi); Defendant (respondent): Moneylogix Group, Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Mortgagebrokers.com Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Moneylogix Group Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Mortgagebrokers.com Financial Group of Companies Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Gary Cilevitz; Defendant (respondent): Michael Knarr (also known as Mike Knarr); Defendant (respondent): Farideh Ronhbakhsh (also known as Farideh Rouhbakhsh)
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Motions Judge Summary Judgment; Appeal Allowed and Matter Remitted to Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment dismissed; both the plaintiffs' claim and the defendants' counterclaim on the two promissory notes referred to trial; costs of appeal fixed at $27,000 payable to appellants; motion costs referred to trial judge.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Release, Promissory Note Enforceability, Fraud Allegations, Mini Trial (rule 20.04(2.2)), Hryniak V. Mauldin Applicability, Evidence and Credibility
Source Language
english
Contract Fraud Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equitable Remedies Summary Judgment Release Promissory Note Enforceability +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baywood Homes Partnership

Plaintiff (appellant)

2131059 Ontario Limited

Plaintiff (appellant)

2206659 Ontario Limited

Plaintiff (appellant)

1367169 Ontario Limited

Plaintiff (appellant)

Ralph Canonaco

Plaintiff (appellant)

Alex Haditaghi (also known as Alex Vahid Haditaghi; Vahid Haditaghi)

Defendant (respondent)

Majid Haditaghi (also known as Michael Haditaghi; Mark Haditaghi)

Defendant (respondent)

Moneylogix Group, Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Mortgagebrokers.com Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Moneylogix Group Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Mortgagebrokers.com Financial Group of Companies Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Gary Cilevitz

Defendant (respondent)

Michael Knarr (also known as Mike Knarr)

Defendant (respondent)

Farideh Ronhbakhsh (also known as Farideh Rouhbakhsh)

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Motions Judge Summary Judgment; Appeal Allowed and Matter Remitted to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Third Release barred the appellants’ claims
  2. 2 Whether the two promissory notes were enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the motions judge properly exercised his authority under Rule 20.04(2.2) and applied Hryniak

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed and the summary judgment is set aside because the motions judge erred in principle by adjudicating the Third Release summarily while referring the closely related promissory notes to trial without properly assessing the appropriateness of a staged summary process in the context of the litigation as a whole and by relying on decontextualized transcript admissions; the interrelation of the documents and credibility issues require a full trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment dismissed; both the plaintiffs' claim and the defendants' counterclaim on the two promissory notes referred to trial; costs of appeal fixed at $27,000 payable to appellants; motion costs referred to trial judge.

Orders

  • Allow appeal and set aside summary judgment dated April 18, 2013
  • Refer both the claim and the counterclaim to trial