Eastside Management 94 Inc. v. Petro Partners

Eastside Management 94 Inc. v. Petro Partners

The motions judge did not err: there was no genuine issue for trial that Eastside Management 94 Inc. was contractually liable and the amount was undisputed, but the evidence showed the agent (Eastside 94) was solely liable so the judgments against the disclosed principals (220 Eglinton East Limited and 2551 Lakeshore Limited) were set aside.

Citation
C30759
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Eastside Management 94 Inc.; Defendant/appellant: 220 Eglinton East Limited; Defendant/appellant: 2551 Lakeshore Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Petro Partners
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as against Eastside Management 94 Inc.; appeal allowed and judgment set aside as against 220 Eglinton East Limited and 2551 Lakeshore Limited; respondent awarded costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Principal Agent Liability, Pleadings, Damages, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Contract Agency Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Principal Agent Liability Pleadings Damages +1 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eastside Management 94 Inc.

Defendant/appellant

220 Eglinton East Limited

Defendant/appellant

2551 Lakeshore Limited

Defendant/appellant

Petro Partners

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motions judge had jurisdiction to decide the summary judgment motion referred by the Master
  2. 2 Whether the statement of claim was deficient
  3. 3 Whether Eastside Management 94 Inc. was liable on the contract (new contract versus assumption of old Eastside's obligations)

Ratio Decidendi

The motions judge did not err: there was no genuine issue for trial that Eastside Management 94 Inc. was contractually liable and the amount was undisputed, but the evidence showed the agent (Eastside 94) was solely liable so the judgments against the disclosed principals (220 Eglinton East Limited and 2551 Lakeshore Limited) were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as against Eastside Management 94 Inc.; appeal allowed and judgment set aside as against 220 Eglinton East Limited and 2551 Lakeshore Limited; respondent awarded costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed as against Eastside Management 94 Inc.
  • Appeal allowed and judgment against 220 Eglinton East Limited set aside