Chitel v. Bank of Montreal, et al.

Chitel v. Bank of Montreal, et al.

The Court set aside the motions judge's order insofar as it granted summary judgment to the Brents and narrowed the issues because the motions judge relied on a factual concession that had been made only for the purposes of the motion; such a concession could not properly be used to dispose of or narrow the entire proceeding where genuine factual disputes and complex legal issues require a full trial.

Citation
C31276
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Leona Chitel; Respondent/defendant: Bank of Montreal; Respondent/defendant: Anglo York Industries Limited; Respondent/defendant (cross Claim): Philip Brent; Respondent/defendant (cross Claim): Deborah Anne Brent
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (summary Judgment) / Appeal From Order of Spence J. Granting and Narrowing Summary Judgment Issues Before the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order of Spence J. set aside insofar as it granted judgment to the Brents and narrowed the issues for trial; remainder of Spence J.'s order unchanged and not before the court.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Trust, Fraud, Conversion, Improvident Sale, Secret Profits, Conspiracy to Defraud, Procedural Concessions
Source Language
English
Civil Equity Contract Property Trusts and Fiduciary Law Procedural Law Summary Judgment Breach of Fiduciary Duty +7 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leona Chitel

Appellant/plaintiff

Bank of Montreal

Respondent/defendant

Anglo York Industries Limited

Respondent/defendant

Philip Brent

Respondent/defendant (cross Claim)

Deborah Anne Brent

Respondent/defendant (cross Claim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (summary Judgment) / Appeal From Order of Spence J. Granting and Narrowing Summary Judgment Issues Before the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motions judge properly granted summary judgment to the Brents
  2. 2 Whether factual concessions made for the purposes of a summary judgment motion can be used to dispose of or narrow the entire proceeding
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff maintained viable equitable and contractual claims despite the conceded facts

Ratio Decidendi

The Court set aside the motions judge's order insofar as it granted summary judgment to the Brents and narrowed the issues because the motions judge relied on a factual concession that had been made only for the purposes of the motion; such a concession could not properly be used to dispose of or narrow the entire proceeding where genuine factual disputes and complex legal issues require a full trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order of Spence J. set aside insofar as it granted judgment to the Brents and narrowed the issues for trial; remainder of Spence J.'s order unchanged and not before the court.

Orders

  • Order of Spence J. set aside insofar as it granted judgment to Philip Brent and Deborah Anne Brent on their cross-motion for summary judgment and insofar as it narrowed the issues for trial against the other defendants
  • No costs for the failed summary judgment motions by and against the Brents and the Bank