Chan v. Holland

Chan v. Holland

The motion judge correctly concluded there was no air of reality to the appellant's claim that she believed the respondent was pursuing her tort claim; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2011 ONCA 738
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Anita Siu Lai Chan; Defendant/respondent: James Holland Barrister and Solicitor; Defendant/respondent: Anthony Sik Kong Ngai; Defendant/respondent: Anthony Richardson & Associates; Third Party: Sue Chen; Third Party: Kai Kwong Yeung; Third Party: Yeung & Associates
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal Court of Appeal (summary Judgment Review)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Air of Reality, 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anita Siu Lai Chan

Plaintiff/appellant

James Holland Barrister and Solicitor

Defendant/respondent

Anthony Sik Kong Ngai

Defendant/respondent

Anthony Richardson & Associates

Defendant/respondent

Sue Chen

Third Party

Kai Kwong Yeung

Third Party

Yeung & Associates

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal Court of Appeal (summary Judgment Review)

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether there was an 'air of reality' to the appellant's claim that she believed the respondent was pursuing her tort claim

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge correctly concluded there was no air of reality to the appellant's claim that she believed the respondent was pursuing her tort claim; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T.