Grey Condominium Corporation No. 29 v. Blue Mountain Resorts Limited
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's decision to permit withdrawal of the admission and to order a mistrial involved the exercise of discretion and produced no prejudice to the defendant; absent demonstrable prejudice or error, the appellate court will not interfere.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C40901
- Parties
- Respondent: Grey Condominium Corporation No. 29 on its own behalf and on behalf of all of the unit owners of Grey Condominium Corporation No. 29; Appellant: Blue Mountain Resorts Limited; Appellant: The Corporation of the Township of Collingwood; Appellant: Ennio Picinnato, Architect Inc.; Appellant: Ennio Picinnato
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 October 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Admission, Mistrial, Costs Thrown Away, Trial Judge Discretion, Finality of Order
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Grey Condominium Corporation No. 29 on its own behalf and on behalf of all of the unit owners of Grey Condominium Corporation No. 29
Respondent
Blue Mountain Resorts Limited
Appellant
The Corporation of the Township of Collingwood
Appellant
Ennio Picinnato, Architect Inc.
Appellant
Ennio Picinnato
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in permitting the withdrawal of a pre‑trial and opening admission
- 2 Whether the order permitting withdrawal is a final and appealable order
- 3 Whether ordering a mistrial and awarding costs thrown away was appropriate and caused prejudice to the appellant
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's decision to permit withdrawal of the admission and to order a mistrial involved the exercise of discretion and produced no prejudice to the defendant; absent demonstrable prejudice or error, the appellate court will not interfere.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Order of trial judge permitting withdrawal of the admission and ordering a mistrial and costs thrown away is not disturbed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and Goods and Services Tax, to be set off against the costs ordered by the trial judge.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Grey Condominium Corporation No. 29 v. Blue Mountain Resorts Limited Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-10-01 Docket numbers C40901 Judges Catzman, Marvin Adrian; Doherty, David H.; Armstrong, Robert Patrick Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20041001 DOCKET: C40901 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: GREY CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 29 on its own behalf and on behalf of all of the unit owners of Grey Condominium Corporation No. 29 (Respondent) – and – BLUE MOUNTAIN RESORTS LIMITED, THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF COLLINGWOOD, ENNIO PICINNATO, ARCHITECT INC. and ENNIO PICINNATO (Appellant) BEFORE: CATZMAN, DOHERTY and ARMSTRONG JJ.A. COUNSEL: R. B. Moldaver, Q.C. for the appellant Blue Mountain Resorts Limited Jonathan Speigel for the respondent HEARD AND ENDORSED: September 27, 2004 On appeal from the Order of Justice J.L. MacFarland of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 27, 2003. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] After 2-1/2 days of trial, the trial judge permitted counsel for the plaintiff (respondent in this court) to withdraw an admission which he made prior to trial and at the opening of trial in respect of the plaintiff’s claim for damages. [2] In order to permit counsel for the defendant (appellant in this court) to consider his position and to take such steps as may be advised, the trial judge ordered a mistrial and awarded the defendant the costs thrown away. [3] The appellant seeks to set aside the trial judge’s order permitting the withdrawal of the admission. Assuming without deciding that, as both counsel submitted, the order under appeal is a final order, we see no reason to interfere. In our view, the order of the trial judge involved the exercise of her discretion. The order produces no prejudice to the defendant. We therefore dismiss the appeal. [4] Costs are awarded to the respondent fixed in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and Goods and Services Tax which sum shall be set off against the costs ordered by the trial judge.