Mehedi v. 2057161 Ontario Inc. (Job Success)
The Court determined that the substance of the motion required that the motion to introduce new evidence be brought in the Superior Court and, as a procedural matter, directed that future service on Mr. Smith may be effected by ordinary mail at both the previously indicated address and the newly provided address and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 847
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Golam Mehedi; Defendant: 2057161 Ontario Inc., c.o.b. as Job Success; Defendant: Dale Smith; Defendant: M.A. Hameed; Defendant: Wendell Lacombe
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (addendum) / In Chambers Motion for Directions; Addendum to Prior Decision; Remitted to Superior Court for New Evidence
- Outcome
- Motion for directions concluded; motion to introduce new evidence to be brought in the Superior Court; directions given regarding additional address and email for service on Mr. Smith.
- Legal Topics
- Motion for Directions, New Evidence, Service of Process, Address for Service, Remittal to Trial Court
- 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
Golam Mehedi
Plaintiff
2057161 Ontario Inc., c.o.b. as Job Success
Defendant
Dale Smith
Defendant
M.A. Hameed
Defendant
Wendell Lacombe
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (addendum) / In Chambers Motion for Directions; Addendum to Prior Decision; Remitted to Superior Court for New Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion to introduce new evidence should be entertained by this Court or brought in the Superior Court
- 2 Whether additional directions are required regarding service on the responding party and proper address for service
Ratio Decidendi
The Court determined that the substance of the motion required that the motion to introduce new evidence be brought in the Superior Court and, as a procedural matter, directed that future service on Mr. Smith may be effected by ordinary mail at both the previously indicated address and the newly provided address and by email.
Court Disposition
Motion for directions concluded; motion to introduce new evidence to be brought in the Superior Court; directions given regarding additional address and email for service on Mr. Smith.
Orders
- Motion to introduce new evidence shall be brought in the Superior Court.
- Future service upon Mr. Smith may be made by ordinary mail at both the address of service indicated in the endorsement and at the following address: #8 1022, 89 Queens Quay W., Toronto, ON M5J 2V3.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Mehedi v. 2057161 Ontario Inc. (Job Success) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-11-28 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 847 Docket numbers C54018, M44010 Judges Juriansz, Russell G. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Mehedi v. 2057161 Ontario Inc. (Job Success), 2014 ONCA 847 DATE: 20141126 DOCKET: M44010 (C54018) Juriansz J.A. (In Chambers) BETWEEN Golam Mehedi Plaintiff (Moving Party) and 2057161 Ontario Inc., c.o.b. as Job Success, Dale Smith, M.A. Hameed, and Wendell Lacombe Defendants (Responding Party) Golam Mehedi, acting in person Christopher Stanek, duty counsel for the moving party No one appearing for the responding party Heard: July 30, 2014 Addendum to the decision in Mehedi v. 2057161 Ontario Inc. (Job Success), 2014 ONCA 604, released on August 21, 2014 ADDENDUM [1] On November 19, 2014, the court received a further communication from Mr. Smith. He sent a letter dated November 12, 2014 addressed to both this court and to the Superior Court in Toronto. The letter seeks “clarification and direction”. In the letter Mr. Smith claims he knew nothing of Mr. Mehedi’s July 30, 2014 motion. In the letter Mr. Smith explains the delay in writing to the court stating that he became ill after his first inquiry to the court in early August. He states he has not received service of any documents by Mr. Mehedi and asks for advice “so that I may receive proper notice”. [2] The contents of Mr. Smith’s letter do not affect the substance of my decision, which related to a motion for directions and concluded that Mr. Mehedi’s motion to introduce new evidence should be brought in the Superior Court. However, Mr. Smith has provided a new mailing address and email address. In accordance with the last paragraph of my decision on the motion, I further direct that future service upon Mr. Smith may be made by ordinary mail at both the address of service indicated in the endorsement and at the following address: #8 1022, 89 Queens Quay W. Toronto, ON M5J 2V3 Email: dale@to-job-success.net “R.G. Juriansz J.A.”