Midas Canada Ltd. v. 846709 Ontario Ltd.

Midas Canada Ltd. v. 846709 Ontario Ltd.

Rule 59.06(1) does not authorize amendment of the court's order to introduce issues that were not raised or argued on appeal; because the scope of Ground J.'s finding regarding the pro forma operating statements was not before this court, the agreed appellate order should make no reference to that part of his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C30383, M24692
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Midas Canada Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: 846709 Ontario Ltd., operating as Georgetown Midas Muffler; Defendant/appellant: James Hunt
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Collection (franchise Dispute) / Appeal From Summary Judgment; Motion to Amend Appellate Order Under Rule 59.06(1)
Outcome
Motion to amend the court's order denied; the court's May 6, 1999 order (entered June 29, 1999) stands unchanged.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Equitable Set Off, Counterclaim, Misrepresentation, Amendment of Appellate Order
Source Language
english
Civil Contract Franchise Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Equitable Set Off Counterclaim Misrepresentation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midas Canada Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent

846709 Ontario Ltd., operating as Georgetown Midas Muffler

Defendant/appellant

James Hunt

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Collection (franchise Dispute) / Appeal From Summary Judgment; Motion to Amend Appellate Order Under Rule 59.06(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged misrepresentations could be advanced as a defence of equitable set-off or only by counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether Rule 59.06(1) permits amendment of an appellate order to introduce issues not raised on appeal
  3. 3 Whether Ground J.'s finding that there was no triable issue regarding pro forma operating statements was open to challenge at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 59.06(1) does not authorize amendment of the court's order to introduce issues that were not raised or argued on appeal; because the scope of Ground J.'s finding regarding the pro forma operating statements was not before this court, the agreed appellate order should make no reference to that part of his judgment and the May 6, 1999 order stands unchanged.

Court Disposition

Motion to amend the court's order denied; the court's May 6, 1999 order (entered June 29, 1999) stands unchanged.

Orders

  • Order dated May 6, 1999 and entered June 29, 1999 will stand
  • Costs of the motion in the cause