Duong v. Linamar Corporation (Eston Manufacturing)
The motion judge did not err in granting summary judgment; the Court of Appeal affirms the motion judge's reasons and dismisses the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 38
- Parties
- Appellant: Hoa Duong; Respondent: Linamar Corporation carrying on business as Eston Manufacturing; Respondent: 1455989 Ontario Ltd.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 January 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Appeal, Costs
- 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
Hoa Duong
Appellant
Linamar Corporation carrying on business as Eston Manufacturing
Respondent
1455989 Ontario Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment
- 2 Whether costs of the appeal should be fixed and in what amount
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge did not err in granting summary judgment; the Court of Appeal affirms the motion judge's reasons and dismisses the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs of the appeal fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Duong v. Linamar Corporation (Eston Manufacturing) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-01-17 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 38 Docket numbers C52382 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Blair, Robert Ashley; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Duong v. Linamar Corporation (Eston Manufacturing), 2011 ONCA 38 DATE: 20110117 DOCKET: C52382 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Weiler, Blair and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN Hoa Duong Plaintiff (Appellant) and Linamar Corporation carrying on business as Eston Manufacturing, and 1455989 Ontario Ltd. Defendants (Respondents) J. Douglas Wright, for the appellant Malcolm J. MacKillop and Heather Wood London, for the respondents Heard: January 10, 2011 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Frank J.C. Newbould of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 2, 2010. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The issue on this appeal is whether the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment. In our opinion, he did not. [2] We dismiss this appeal for the reasons given by the motion judge. Costs of the appeal are fixed in the amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.