Grant Thornton LLP v. Direct Plastics Ltd.

Grant Thornton LLP v. Direct Plastics Ltd.

The motion judge did not err in dismissing the appellant's counterclaim for lack of direct admissible evidence; the respondent was entitled to summary judgment for the admitted fees including $220,295.83 and $30,984.45 and the full adjusted amount for remaining fees as limited by the respondent; the claimed 18% pre-judgment interest was rejected and interest is awarded under the Courts of Justice Act; costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

Citation
2010 ONCA 187
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Grant Thornton LLP; Defendant (appellant): Direct Plastics Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed; respondent granted summary judgment for fees in adjusted amounts; 18% pre-judgment interest rejected; interest to be awarded under the Courts of Justice Act; costs fixed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Interpretation of Contract, Pre Judgment Interest, Costs, Fees, Tax Reassessment
Source Language
English
Contract Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Tax Law Appeals Summary Judgment Interpretation of Contract Pre Judgment Interest +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grant Thornton LLP

Plaintiff (respondent)

Direct Plastics Ltd.

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in dismissing the appellant's counterclaim alleging professional negligence and breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to summary judgment for fees and the proper timing of payment under the agreement
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to pre-judgment interest at 18% per annum

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge did not err in dismissing the appellant's counterclaim for lack of direct admissible evidence; the respondent was entitled to summary judgment for the admitted fees including $220,295.83 and $30,984.45 and the full adjusted amount for remaining fees as limited by the respondent; the claimed 18% pre-judgment interest was rejected and interest is awarded under the Courts of Justice Act; costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed; respondent granted summary judgment for fees in adjusted amounts; 18% pre-judgment interest rejected; interest to be awarded under the Courts of Justice Act; costs fixed.

Orders

  • Counterclaim dismissed.
  • Cross-appeal allowed in part and summary judgment granted to respondent for fees including $220,295.83 and $30,984.45 and additional adjusted amounts as claimed.