Cameco Corporation v. 970236 Ontario Inc.
The trial judge correctly found the appellant occupied the respondent's property without legal right, exercised proper discretion in granting a grace period and deadlines for removal of personal property, and made no legal error warranting appellate interference; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 674
- Parties
- Applicant: Cameco Corporation; Respondent: 970236 Ontario Inc., operating as Bailey’s Automotive Recycling; Respondent: Andre Milne
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 September 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Collection / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Possession, Eviction, Writ of Possession, Removal of Personal Property, Costs, Charter Rights
- 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
Cameco Corporation
Applicant
970236 Ontario Inc., operating as Bailey’s Automotive Recycling
Respondent
Andre Milne
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Collection / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ordering the appellant to vacate the respondent's property and in imposing deadlines for removal of personal property
- 2 Whether the trial judge's order violated the appellant's property rights or Canadian Charter rights
- 3 Whether appellate intervention was warranted given the trial judge's discretionary findings
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge correctly found the appellant occupied the respondent's property without legal right, exercised proper discretion in granting a grace period and deadlines for removal of personal property, and made no legal error warranting appellate interference; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs fixed at $5,000 including GST and disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Cameco Corporation v. 970236 Ontario Inc. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-09-23 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 674 Docket numbers C50362 Judges Winkler, Warren Keith; Sharpe, Robert J.; Armstrong, Robert Patrick Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Cameco Corporation v. 970236 Ontario Inc., 2009 ONCA 674 DATE: 20090923 DOCKET: C50362 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Winkler C.J.O., Sharpe and Armstrong JJ.A. BETWEEN Cameco Corporation Applicant and 970236 Ontario Inc., operating as Bailey’s Automotive Recycling and Andre Milne Respondents Andre Milne, in person Peter Lukasiewicz, for the respondents Heard and released orally: September 10, 2009 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Drew Gunsolus of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 11, 2009. ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge in this matter found that the appellant had been living and working on the property of the respondent Cameco Corporation without legal right and ordered that the appellant should vacate the property. At the same time, he allowed him a substantial grace period before a writ of possession should issue. In the interim, the appellant was ordered to remove his personal property including certain working tools and equipment by fixed dates. The appellant did not do so in respect of his working tools. [2] Before this court, he argues that his property and Charter rights have been breached by virtue of the trial judge’s order. We disagree. We see no error on the part of the trial judge. Any problems that the appellant now faces are, in effect, of his own making. [3] The appeal is therefore dismissed. Costs are fixed in the total amount of $5,000 including GST and disbursements. “W. Winkler C.J.O.” “Robert Sharpe J.A.” “Armstrong J.A.”