Magas v. Monette

Magas v. Monette

The appeal was allowed because the Court found genuine issues of fact and credibility on the record that required determination at trial; accordingly the summary judgment motions were dismissed and the matter was remitted for trial, with costs awarded to the appellant.

Citation
C39036
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Diana Magas; Defendant/respondent: John Monette; Defendant/respondent: Lori Pasanen; Defendant/respondent: Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board; Defendant/respondent: Desmond McGarry; Defendant/respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario; Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General of Ontario
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court Order on Motions for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment motions dismissed; matter remitted for trial
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Entitlement to Trial, Credibility Issues, Costs Assessment, Bankruptcy Status of Appellant
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Torts Costs Summary Judgment Entitlement to Trial Credibility Issues Costs Assessment +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diana Magas

Plaintiff/appellant

John Monette

Defendant/respondent

Lori Pasanen

Defendant/respondent

Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Police Services Board

Defendant/respondent

Desmond McGarry

Defendant/respondent

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Defendant/respondent

The Attorney General of Ontario

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Superior Court Order on Motions for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motions judge erred in granting summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether genuine issues of fact and credibility existed requiring a trial
  3. 3 Whether the appellant could proceed despite being an undischarged bankrupt

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Court found genuine issues of fact and credibility on the record that required determination at trial; accordingly the summary judgment motions were dismissed and the matter was remitted for trial, with costs awarded to the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment motions dismissed; matter remitted for trial

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Motions for summary judgment dismissed