Bradshaw v. Langley
The Court concluded the motion judge did not err: paragraph 8 of the Reply together with the parties' correspondence and Mr. Bradshaw's payment conduct demonstrate a mutual intention that each party hold 50% for the other, warranting dismissal of the appeal and affirming the summary judgment outcome.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2013 ONCA 606
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert James Bradshaw; Respondent: Patricia Anne Langley, by her Estate Trustees Kathryn Edith Hope, Lancelyn Rayman-Watters, Judith Clarkson and Edward P. Kerwin
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 October 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Beneficial Ownership, Constructive Trust, Co Ownership, 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
Robert James Bradshaw
Appellant
Patricia Anne Langley, by her Estate Trustees Kathryn Edith Hope, Lancelyn Rayman-Watters, Judith Clarkson and Edward P. Kerwin
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the summary judgment motion judge erred in relying on paragraph 8 of the Reply and Answer to Counterpetition and related correspondence and conduct to find a mutual intention that each party hold 50% for the other
- 2 Whether the parties' payments and correspondence establish a common intention sufficient to determine beneficial ownership without a trial
- 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the record
Ratio Decidendi
The Court concluded the motion judge did not err: paragraph 8 of the Reply together with the parties' correspondence and Mr. Bradshaw's payment conduct demonstrate a mutual intention that each party hold 50% for the other, warranting dismissal of the appeal and affirming the summary judgment outcome.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Costs fixed at $11,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Bradshaw v. Langley Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2013-10-04 Neutral citation 2013 ONCA 606 Docket numbers C57063 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Feldman, Kathryn N.; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Bradshaw v. Langley, 2013 ONCA 606 DATE: 20131004 DOCKET: C57063 Weiler, Feldman and Blair JJ.A. BETWEEN Robert James Bradshaw Appellant and Patricia Anne Langley, by her Estate Trustees, Kathryn Edith Hope, Lancelyn Rayman-Watters, Judith Clarkson and Edward P. Kerwin Respondents Bryan Finlay (Q.C) and Karon Bales, for the appellant Peter H. Griffin and Brendan F. Morrison, for the respondents Heard: October 1, 2013 On appeal from the order of Justice C. Horkins of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 18, 2013. ENDORSEMENT [1] We are not persuaded that the summary judgment motion judge erred in relying on paragraph 8 of the Reply and Answer to Counterpetition of the appellant, as supported by the correspondence and subsequent conduct of Mr. Bradshaw in his payments to the respondent over time, in concluding that Mr. Bradshaw always understood that the intention of both parties was that regardless of the ownership of the assets, each held 50% for the other. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs fixed at $11,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements. “K.M. Weiler J.A.” “K.N. Feldman J.A.” “R.A. Blair J.A.”