Santos v. Sangwan

Santos v. Sangwan

The Court found the evidence insufficient to support the application judge's finding of fraudulent misrepresentation (no clear evidence of recklessness or inducement, and the email post-dated the agreement), allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal, and ordered the matter to proceed to trial under Rule 38.10 with pleadings to be delivered and no costs awarded.

Citation
2015 ONCA 822
Parties
Applicant/appellant: John Louis Santos; Respondent: Paramjit Sangwan; Respondent: Print 911 Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Application Under Rule 14.05; Remitted to Trial Under Rule 38.10
Outcome
Appeal allowed; dismissal of application set aside; matter ordered to trial; no costs
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Summary Judgment/application for Judgment, Remittal to Trial, Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Civil Procedure Fraud Promissory Note Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Summary Judgment/application for Judgment Remittal to Trial +1 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Louis Santos

Applicant/appellant

Paramjit Sangwan

Respondent

Print 911 Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Application Under Rule 14.05; Remitted to Trial Under Rule 38.10

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant made a fraudulent misrepresentation as to equipment value
  2. 2 Whether any misrepresentation was made recklessly or induced the respondent to enter the agreement
  3. 3 Whether summary disposition (judgment on the promissory note) was appropriate or whether the matter required a trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the evidence insufficient to support the application judge's finding of fraudulent misrepresentation (no clear evidence of recklessness or inducement, and the email post-dated the agreement), allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal, and ordered the matter to proceed to trial under Rule 38.10 with pleadings to be delivered and no costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; dismissal of application set aside; matter ordered to trial; no costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Application judge's dismissal set aside