Garden v. Apotex Inc.

Garden v. Apotex Inc.

The appeal was allowed because the motions judge exceeded the proper scope of a summary judgment motion by making findings of fact and credibility and weighing conflicting evidence; therefore the order granting summary judgment was set aside and the motion was dismissed, with costs awarded to the appellant as specified.

Citation
C34411
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Stanley M. Garden; Defendant/respondent: Apotex Inc.; Defendant/respondent: Minto Yorkville Inc.; Defendant/respondent: 1149362 Ontario Limited; Defendant/respondent: Sherfam Inc.; Defendant/respondent: Barry Sherman
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; order of Swinton J. set aside; motion for summary judgment dismissed; costs awarded to appellant as stated.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Deceit, Wrongful Dismissal, Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy, Intentional Interference With Economic Relations, Credibility Findings, Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Tort Employment Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Breach of Contract Misrepresentation Deceit +6 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanley M. Garden

Plaintiff/appellant

Apotex Inc.

Defendant/respondent

Minto Yorkville Inc.

Defendant/respondent

1149362 Ontario Limited

Defendant/respondent

Sherfam Inc.

Defendant/respondent

Barry Sherman

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given conflicting evidence and credibility issues
  2. 2 Whether Sherman acted in good faith in terminating the Agreement to enable sale to Minto
  3. 3 Whether the defendants breached the Agreement or otherwise committed torts alleged by the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the motions judge exceeded the proper scope of a summary judgment motion by making findings of fact and credibility and weighing conflicting evidence; therefore the order granting summary judgment was set aside and the motion was dismissed, with costs awarded to the appellant as specified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; order of Swinton J. set aside; motion for summary judgment dismissed; costs awarded to appellant as stated.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed