Adelaide Capital Corporation v. Pretoro Developments Inc.

Adelaide Capital Corporation v. Pretoro Developments Inc.

The appeal was dismissed because the conflicts in evidence identified by the appellants were not material and, even if accepted, would not constitute a legal defence, so there was no genuine issue for trial; the cross-appeal succeeded because the motions judge erred in depriving the respondent of its contractual...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C30452
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent; Defendant by Counterclaim: Adelaide Capital Corporation; Defendant/appellant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Pretoro Developments Inc.; Defendant/appellant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Angelo Filoso; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Casanetics Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Summary Judgment and Costs (cross Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Mortgage Enforcement, Genuine Issue for Trial, Solicitor and Client Costs, Exercise of Discretion
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Mortgage Law Costs Appeals Summary Judgment Mortgage Enforcement Genuine Issue for Trial Solicitor and Client Costs +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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adelaide Capital Corporation

Plaintiff/respondent; Defendant by Counterclaim

Pretoro Developments Inc.

Defendant/appellant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Angelo Filoso

Defendant/appellant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Casanetics Inc.

Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Summary Judgment and Costs (cross Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motions judge misapprehended his role and improperly made findings of fact and credibility on summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the conflicts in the evidence related to material facts requiring a trial
  3. 3 Whether, even accepting the appellants' facts, a legal defence exists to defeat summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the conflicts in evidence identified by the appellants were not material and, even if accepted, would not constitute a legal defence, so there was no genuine issue for trial; the cross-appeal succeeded because the motions judge erred in depriving the respondent of its contractual right to solicitor and client costs and in the exercise of his discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Leave to cross-appeal granted