Evans v. Snieg

Evans v. Snieg

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to request or schedule cross-examination or seek further oral submissions as required by the rules, and the motion judge's unchallenged factual finding that unforeseen poor soil conditions explained the increased costs was entitled to deference.

Citation
2014 ONCA 661
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Laura Anne Evans; Plaintiff/respondent: Michael Adam Lydan; Defendant/appellant: Stanislaw Snieg; Defendant/appellant: Maria Snieg
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Final Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Motion Practice, Expert Reports, Cross Examination, Rule 20, Summary Judgment, Retaining Wall Cost Dispute
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Expert Evidence Costs Real Property Motion Practice Expert Reports Cross Examination +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laura Anne Evans

Plaintiff/respondent

Michael Adam Lydan

Plaintiff/respondent

Stanislaw Snieg

Defendant/appellant

Maria Snieg

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred by refusing to permit cross-examination of the respondents' expert on a supplemental report
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge improperly converted the motion into a summary determination and should have ordered a mini-trial or other relief under Rule 20
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are liable to pay the increased cost of constructing the retaining wall due to unforeseen soil conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to request or schedule cross-examination or seek further oral submissions as required by the rules, and the motion judge's unchallenged factual finding that unforeseen poor soil conditions explained the increased costs was entitled to deference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; costs fixed in favour of the respondents in the amount of $8,500.00 all inclusive