H. Baur Investments Limited v. Tangredi

H. Baur Investments Limited v. Tangredi

The agreement's plain terms prohibit parking on the private roadway (including the portion covered by the brick pad); the appellant's late, evidence-supported amendment claim fails because it was not proven with admissible direct evidence and was raised belatedly on appeal; the motion judge did not err in ordering compliance including signing the site plan application; appeal dismissed.

Citation
2017 ONCA 871
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): H. Baur Investments Limited; Defendant (appellant): Vincent Tangredi
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Appeal From Order of the Superior Court of Justice (motion Judge), Dated February 8, 2017
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Use of Private Roadway, Parking Restriction, Contract Interpretation, Admissibility of Hearsay, Costs
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Equity and Injunctions Evidence Use of Private Roadway Parking Restriction Contract Interpretation Admissibility of Hearsay +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H. Baur Investments Limited

Plaintiff (respondent)

Vincent Tangredi

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Appeal From Order of the Superior Court of Justice (motion Judge), Dated February 8, 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement between owners permits parking on the private roadway
  2. 2 Whether the appellant may raise a new amendment-to-agreement argument on appeal
  3. 3 Whether evidence of past practice and a 1991 letter is admissible or is hearsay

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement's plain terms prohibit parking on the private roadway (including the portion covered by the brick pad); the appellant's late, evidence-supported amendment claim fails because it was not proven with admissible direct evidence and was raised belatedly on appeal; the motion judge did not err in ordering compliance including signing the site plan application; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondent in the fixed sum of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST