Lana International Ltd. v. Menasco Aerospace Ltd.

Lana International Ltd. v. Menasco Aerospace Ltd.

The motions judge erred by using the moving defendant’s own examination for discovery as substantive evidence in deciding the summary judgment contrary to Rule 39.04(2); further, a corporate officer is not immune from personal tort liability simply because alleged tortious acts were performed within the scope of corporate duties. The summary judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration or a fresh motion supported by proper affidavit evidence.

Citation
C33354
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Lana International Ltd.; Plaintiff/appellant: Aircraft Parts Maintenance and Equipments Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Menasco Aerospace Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Coletec Industries Inc.; Defendant/respondent: John Cybulski; Defendant/respondent: The Boeing Company; Defendant/respondent: AAR Allen Inc.; Defendant/respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Government of Canada as represented by the Minister of Transport
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order of Brennan J. (motion for Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment dismissed and set aside; matter remitted for further proceedings; costs awarded to appellants on a party-and-party basis
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Use of Examinations for Discovery on Motions, Scope of Employment and Personal Liability, Negligent Misrepresentation, Defamation, Statute of Limitations, Qualified Privilege, Adverse Inference for Failure to File Affidavit
Source Language
English
Torts Civil Procedure Corporate Law Summary Judgment Use of Examinations for Discovery on Motions Scope of Employment and Personal Liability Negligent Misrepresentation Defamation +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lana International Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Aircraft Parts Maintenance and Equipments Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Menasco Aerospace Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Coletec Industries Inc.

Defendant/respondent

John Cybulski

Defendant/respondent

The Boeing Company

Defendant/respondent

AAR Allen Inc.

Defendant/respondent

Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Government of Canada as represented by the Minister of Transport

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Order of Brennan J. (motion for Summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 39.04(2) precludes a moving party from using the party’s own examination for discovery on a summary judgment motion
  2. 2 Whether a corporate officer is immune from personal tort liability merely because the alleged tortious acts occurred within the scope of corporate duties
  3. 3 Whether the motions judge properly applied Rule 20.02 adverse inference principles

Ratio Decidendi

The motions judge erred by using the moving defendant’s own examination for discovery as substantive evidence in deciding the summary judgment contrary to Rule 39.04(2); further, a corporate officer is not immune from personal tort liability simply because alleged tortious acts were performed within the scope of corporate duties. The summary judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration or a fresh motion supported by proper affidavit evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment dismissed and set aside; matter remitted for further proceedings; costs awarded to appellants on a party-and-party basis

Orders

  • Set aside the summary judgment dismissing claims against John Cybulski
  • Set aside the motions judge’s cost order in favour of Cybulski and award costs of the motion to the appellants on a party and party basis