Shark Investment Group Inc. v. Scarborotown Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ltd.(Quest Automotive Leasing Services)
On the unchallenged facts the appellants breached the lease by failing to maintain required insurance, that breach constituted default entitling the respondent to enforce contractual remedies, the respondent was not required to exercise its discretionary option to place insurance nor to accept the appellants'...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 414
- Parties
- Appellant: Shark Investment Group Inc.; Appellant: Ralph Papa; Appellant: 1324955 Ontario Ltd. carrying on business as California Sandwiches; Appellant: Carmela Papa; Respondent: Scarborotown Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ltd. carrying on business as Quest Automotive Leasing Services
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 May 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (collection) / Court of Appeal Decision (appeal From Superior Court)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Lease Default, Insurance Obligation Under Lease, Discretion to Accept Replacement Insurance, Enforcement of Contractual Remedies, 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
Shark Investment Group Inc.
Appellant
Ralph Papa
Appellant
1324955 Ontario Ltd. carrying on business as California Sandwiches
Appellant
Carmela Papa
Appellant
Scarborotown Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ltd. carrying on business as Quest Automotive Leasing Services
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil (collection) / Court of Appeal Decision (appeal From Superior Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether appellants breached the lease by failing to maintain insurance on the vehicles
- 2 Whether respondent was obliged to exercise its option to place insurance and charge the lease
- 3 Whether respondent was required to accept proposed replacement insurance from the appellants
Ratio Decidendi
On the unchallenged facts the appellants breached the lease by failing to maintain required insurance, that breach constituted default entitling the respondent to enforce contractual remedies, the respondent was not required to exercise its discretionary option to place insurance nor to accept the appellants' proposed replacement insurance, and accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Shark Investment Group Inc. v. Scarborotown Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ltd.(Quest Automotive Leasing Services) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-05-20 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 414 Docket numbers C47419 Judges Doherty, David H.; Moldaver, Michael James; Simmons, Janet M. Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Shark Investment Group Inc. v. Scarborotown Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ltd. (Quest Automotive Leasing Services), 2009 ONCA 414 DATE: 20090519 DOCKET: C47419 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Doherty, Moldaver and Simmons JJ.A. BETWEEN: Shark Investment Group Inc. and Ralph Papa Appellants and Scarborotown Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ltd., carrying on business as Quest Automotive Leasing Services Respondent AND BETWEEN: 1324955 Ontario Ltd. carrying on business as California Sandwiches and Carmela Papa Appellants and Scarborotown Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ltd., carrying on business as Quest Automotive Leasing Services Respondent Alan S. Price, for the appellants William F. Kelly, for the respondent Heard: May 14, 2009 On appeal from the judgment of Justice J.B. Shaughnessy of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 22, 2007. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] On the virtually unchallenged facts, the appellants were in breach of the terms of the lease requiring that they maintain insurance on the vehicles. That breach placed the appellants in default and entitled the respondent to take the steps it took. [2] We reject the submission that the fact that the parties had a good long-term relationship somehow required the respondent to exercise the option available to it under the terms of the lease to place the insurance itself and charge the cost against the lease. That provision was exercisable entirely at the respondent’s option. [3] We also reject the submission that the respondent was obligated to accept the proposed replacement insurance put forward by the appellants. First, the evidence does not support the contention that the appellants had replacement insurance available. The trial judge found there was no “appropriate insurance available”. Second, there was no requirement that the respondent continue the prior arrangement relating to the placement of insurance after the respondent learned that the entities who had made that arrangement were under investigation for insurance fraud. [4] The other arguments in the factum were not advanced in oral argument and we reject them. [5] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis is fixed at $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.