Hawley v. Pennington

Hawley v. Pennington

The appeal was dismissed because the undisputed evidence showed 5400 Inc. was placed in consent liquidation and was replaced as general partner by court order, which caused the cessation of its business and income; those events, not the respondent's conduct, produced the appellant's alleged loss, so summary judgment in favour of the respondents was correct.

Citation
2012 ONCA 594
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: James B. Hawley; Respondent/defendant: John Pennington
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision Affirming Motion Judge's Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Liquidation/winding Up, Replacement of General Partner, Causation, Loss of Business, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Corporate/commercial Civil Procedure Shareholder Dispute Summary Judgment Liquidation/winding Up Replacement of General Partner Causation +2 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James B. Hawley

Appellant/plaintiff

John Pennington

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision Affirming Motion Judge's Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's conduct caused 5400 Dixie Road Inc. to lose its business and the appellant to lose management fee income
  2. 2 Whether the court-ordered replacement of the general partner and the consent liquidation of 5400 Inc. severed any causal link to the respondent's conduct
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the facts and prior court orders

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the undisputed evidence showed 5400 Inc. was placed in consent liquidation and was replaced as general partner by court order, which caused the cessation of its business and income; those events, not the respondent's conduct, produced the appellant's alleged loss, so summary judgment in favour of the respondents was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and summary judgment in favour of the respondents affirmed
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents in the amount of $6,000 inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes