Stokes v. Marvost

Stokes v. Marvost

The motion judge properly applied the summary judgment test, reasonably accepted the respondent's wife's evidence as meeting the burden to establish the property's uniqueness, and correctly dismissed the appeal; the respondent failed to demonstrate additional damages on cross-appeal, so the cross-appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Citation
2012 ONCA 74
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Nigel Stokes; Appellant (defendant): Marcia Cardamore; Respondent (plaintiff): Mohammadreza Taherizadeh Marvost
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment (order of Superior Court of Justice Dated August 12, 2011)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Uniqueness of Property, Remedies for Breach of Contract, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Real Property Contract Law Appeals Summary Judgment Uniqueness of Property Remedies for Breach of Contract Costs

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Stokes

Appellant (defendant)

Marcia Cardamore

Appellant (defendant)

Mohammadreza Taherizadeh Marvost

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment (order of Superior Court of Justice Dated August 12, 2011)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge properly applied the summary judgment test
  2. 2 Whether the property was shown to be unique such that the motion judge could grant the relief sought
  3. 3 Whether the respondent demonstrated additional damages on cross-appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge properly applied the summary judgment test, reasonably accepted the respondent's wife's evidence as meeting the burden to establish the property's uniqueness, and correctly dismissed the appeal; the respondent failed to demonstrate additional damages on cross-appeal, so the cross-appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed