Struik v. Dixie Lee Food Systems Ltd.

Struik v. Dixie Lee Food Systems Ltd.

The motion judge correctly resolved the issues on a Rule 20 motion because the contested factual findings were supported by unambiguous documents and uncontradicted evidence; the settlement agreement was to be enforced according to its plain terms permitting multiple remedies; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
2014 ONCA 433
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Maria Struik; Defendant (appellant): Dixie Lee Food Systems Ltd.; Defendant (appellant): Dixie Lee of Canada Inc.; Defendant (appellant): Dixie Lee Capital Corporation; Defendant (appellant): Joseph Murano
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Partial Summary Judgment (rule 20 Motion)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Settlement Agreement Interpretation, Guarantee, Priority Dispute, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Commercial Law Summary Judgment Settlement Agreement Interpretation Guarantee Priority Dispute 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Struik

Plaintiff (respondent)

Dixie Lee Food Systems Ltd.

Defendant (appellant)

Dixie Lee of Canada Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

Dixie Lee Capital Corporation

Defendant (appellant)

Joseph Murano

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Partial Summary Judgment (rule 20 Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether factual findings (timing of franchise transfer) could be made on a Rule 20 motion
  2. 2 Whether related corporate status of entities could be found on summary judgment for guarantee liability
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement permits both assignment of franchises and continued payment remedies upon breach

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge correctly resolved the issues on a Rule 20 motion because the contested factual findings were supported by unambiguous documents and uncontradicted evidence; the settlement agreement was to be enforced according to its plain terms permitting multiple remedies; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent in the amount of $12,500 inclusive of taxes and disbursements