Confederation Life Insurance Company v. Katherine Hill Shop Limited
The majority held that the existence and terms of the alleged oral agreement raised genuine issues of fact that could not be resolved on motion; therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the respondent's motion for summary judgment had to be dismissed and the matter remitted for trial on those factual issues.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C31803
- Parties
- Appellant: Katherine Hill Shop Limited; Respondent: Confederation Life Insurance Company
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 January 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal From Motion for Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Summary Judgment/order Denying Summary Judgment Motion
- Legal Topics
- Oral Agreement Enforceability, Agreement to Agree, Summary Judgment, Genuine Issue for Trial
- 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
Katherine Hill Shop Limited
Appellant
Confederation Life Insurance Company
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Motion for Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Summary Judgment/order Denying Summary Judgment Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an oral agreement was made between the parties in spring 1997
- 2 Whether, if made, the respondent breached the terms of that oral agreement
- 3 Whether the alleged oral agreement is legally enforceable or is at most an unenforceable agreement to agree
Ratio Decidendi
The majority held that the existence and terms of the alleged oral agreement raised genuine issues of fact that could not be resolved on motion; therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the respondent's motion for summary judgment had to be dismissed and the matter remitted for trial on those factual issues.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Confederation Life Insurance Company v. Katherine Hill Shop Limited Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2000-01-17 Docket numbers C31803 Judges Catzman, Marvin Adrian; Laskin, John Ivan; Rosenberg, Marc Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20000117 DOCKET: C31803 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: CONFEDERATION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (Respondent) –and– KATHERINE HILL SHOP LIMITED (Appellant) BEFORE: CATZMAN, LASKIN and ROSENBERG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Alan J. Lenczner, Q.C., for the appellant Kenneth W. Crofoot, for the respondent HEARD: January 13, 2000 On appeal from the judgment of Sachs J., dated February 24, 1999. ENDORSEMENT [1] There is a dispute between the parties whether an oral agreement was or was not made between them in the spring of 1997 and whether, assuming that there was such an agreement, the respondent can be found to be in breach of its terms. [2] It is the view of Catzman and Laskin JJ.A. that that dispute constitutes a genuine issue that must be addressed at a trial and that, only after it is decided that there was such an agreement and what the terms of that agreement were, can the legal question be addressed whether the agreement is enforceable as a matter of law. It is the dissenting view of Rosenberg J.A. that the oral agreement alleged by the appellant is, at its highest, an agreement to agree which is, in law, unenforceable. [3] The appeal is allowed, the partial summary judgment is set aside and, in its place, an order will go dismissing the respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The appellant is entitled to its costs of the motion and of the appeal. Signed: “M.A. Catzman J.A.” “John Laskin J.A.” “M. Rosenberg J.A.”