1365657 Ontario Limited v. Milton (Town)

1365657 Ontario Limited v. Milton (Town)

Summary judgment was correctly granted because there was no legal relationship between the appellant and Howden & Sons Ltd. to support a claim, the Town demonstrated statutory authority to add the amount to the appellant's tax bill and met its burden on summary judgment, and the appellant failed to produce evidence beyond bald assertions to raise a genuine issue for trial regarding the size of the bill.

Citation
2009 ONCA 694
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): 1365657 Ontario Limited; Defendant (respondent): The Corporation of the Town of Milton; Defendant (respondent): Howden & Sons Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Statutory Authorization, Municipal Tax Collection, Standing, Costs
Source Language
English

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

1365657 Ontario Limited

Plaintiff (appellant)

The Corporation of the Town of Milton

Defendant (respondent)

Howden & Sons Ltd.

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there is any legal relationship between the appellant and Howden & Sons Ltd. that could support a claim
  2. 2 Whether the Town of Milton was statutorily authorized to add the amount paid to Howden to the appellant's tax bill
  3. 3 Whether the appellant raised a genuine issue for trial to defeat the Town's summary judgment motion

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was correctly granted because there was no legal relationship between the appellant and Howden & Sons Ltd. to support a claim, the Town demonstrated statutory authority to add the amount to the appellant's tax bill and met its burden on summary judgment, and the appellant failed to produce evidence beyond bald assertions to raise a genuine issue for trial regarding the size of the bill.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to the respondents in the amount of $3,500 each, all in