Mikhail v. Downsview Chrysler Plymouth Limited (1964) Ltd.

Mikhail v. Downsview Chrysler Plymouth Limited (1964) Ltd.

There was no factual foundation or admissible evidence to establish contractual, tortious or representational liability by Oxford Dodge or James Bennett; appellants admitted no prior contact with Bennett and Oxford Dodge had no privity with them; moreover appellants were compensated by settlements with other defendants; therefore no genuine issue for trial existed and summary judgment dismissing the claims against Oxford Dodge and Bennett was properly granted.

Citation
2015 ONCA 798
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Michael Mikhail; Appellant/plaintiff: Mary Mikhail; Appellant/plaintiff: Adly Mikhail; Respondent/defendant: Downsview Chrysler Plymouth Limited (1964) Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: Peter Kepic; Respondent/defendant: Carlos Baptista; Respondent/defendant: Oxford Dodge Chrysler Jeep (1992) Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: James Bennett
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment against Oxford Dodge and James Bennett upheld
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Negligence, Contractual Privity, Damages, Settlement, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Contract Law Tort Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Negligence Contractual Privity Damages +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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Mikhail

Appellant/plaintiff

Mary Mikhail

Appellant/plaintiff

Adly Mikhail

Appellant/plaintiff

Downsview Chrysler Plymouth Limited (1964) Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

Peter Kepic

Respondent/defendant

Carlos Baptista

Respondent/defendant

Oxford Dodge Chrysler Jeep (1992) Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

James Bennett

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Oxford Dodge owed contractual or tortious duties to the appellants
  2. 2 Whether James Bennett made representations or otherwise incurred liability to the appellants
  3. 3 Whether there was evidence of negligence or bad faith by Oxford Dodge or Bennett

Ratio Decidendi

There was no factual foundation or admissible evidence to establish contractual, tortious or representational liability by Oxford Dodge or James Bennett; appellants admitted no prior contact with Bennett and Oxford Dodge had no privity with them; moreover appellants were compensated by settlements with other defendants; therefore no genuine issue for trial existed and summary judgment dismissing the claims against Oxford Dodge and Bennett was properly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment against Oxford Dodge and James Bennett upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summary judgment dismissing action against Oxford Dodge Chrysler Jeep (1992) Ltd. and James Bennett affirmed