John Susin Construstion Co. Limited v. Frid Construction Company, Limited
The trial judge's factual findings—that Susin had not established a beneficial interest in the Romano‑Frid contract and had not proven it was an unpaid subcontractor of Romano—were open on the record and not subject to interference; therefore Susin was not entitled to the monies paid into court, but the order paying...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C29596
- Parties
- Appellant: John Susin Construction Co. Limited; Respondent: The Frid Construction Company, Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 February 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal — Decision of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: the trial judge's determinations that Susin was not entitled to the funds are upheld, but the order paying monies to Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation is set aside and an accounting is directed; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Entitlement to Funds Paid Into Court, Beneficial Interest in Contract, Subcontractor Status, Priority of Claims, Accounting for Funds
- 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
John Susin Construction Co. Limited
Appellant
The Frid Construction Company, Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal — Decision of the Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether John Susin Construction Co. Limited held a beneficial interest in the contract between Romano Construction Co. and Frid Construction Co.
- 2 Whether John Susin Construction Co. Limited was an unpaid subcontractor of Romano Construction Co.
- 3 Whether John Susin Construction was entitled to the monies paid into court
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's factual findings—that Susin had not established a beneficial interest in the Romano‑Frid contract and had not proven it was an unpaid subcontractor of Romano—were open on the record and not subject to interference; therefore Susin was not entitled to the monies paid into court, but the order paying the monies to Settlers Savings must be set aside and an accounting directed to determine entitlement to the sum in court.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: the trial judge's determinations that Susin was not entitled to the funds are upheld, but the order paying monies to Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation is set aside and an accounting is directed; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Set aside the order that the monies in court be paid out to Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation.
- Direct an accounting to determine Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation's entitlement to the full sum presently in court to the credit of this action ($62,740.22 together with accrued interest).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
John Susin Construstion Co. Limited v. Frid Construction Company, Limited Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 1999-02-16 Docket numbers C29596 Judges Carthy, James Joseph; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Goudge, Stephen Thomas Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 19990216 DOCKET: C29596 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: JOHN SUSIN CONSTRUCTION CO. LIMITED (Appellant) and THE FRID CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LIMITED (Respondent) BEFORE: CARTHY, ABELLA and GOUDGE JJ.A. COUNSEL: Ronald J. Weston, for the appellant Craig Lewis, for the respondent HEARD: February 10, 1999 ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellants say that the trial judge was wrong to find that John Susin Construction Co. Limited had no entitlement to the funds paid into court. They argue that this finding should be reversed either because Susin Construction did the construction work for Romano Construction Co. and held the beneficial interest in the contractual relationship between Romano and Frid Construction Co. or because Susin Construction was an unpaid sub- contractor of Romano. [2] We disagree. [3] Both issues were squarely put before the trial judge and, given his decision, were necessarily rejected by him. [4] On this record it was open to the trial judge to find that the appellant John Susin Construction Co. Limited had not established a beneficial interest in the construction contract held by Romano with Frid. [5] It was equally open to the trial judge to find that despite the admission that it did construction work on the site, the appellants had not demonstrated that Susin Construction Co. Limited was an unpaid sub-contractor of Romano Construction. [6] We therefore see no basis for interfering with the determination that John Susin Construction Co. Limited was not entitled to the money paid into court to the credit of this action. [7] However, the parties are agreed that the appeal should be allowed to the following extent: The order that the monies in court be paid out to Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation should be set aside. An accounting is directed to determine the entitlement of Settlers Savings and Mortgage Corporation to the full sum presently in court to the credit of this action ($62,740.22 together with accrued interest). If this entitlement is less than the amount in court, the balance is to be paid out to Phyllis Susin or otherwise as the court shall direct. [8] To this limited extent the appeal is allowed. We would make no order as to costs. [9] We should not leave this matter without indicating how helpful to the court it was to have the assistance of counsel.